McConnell won.

[sk8knight]

I think the dynamics of witnesses and Trump trying to exert executive privilege will be fascinating. Senate calls a witness and Trump claims total immunity. The mere act of Roberts signing off on a subpoena would effectively render the total immunity argument moot. So the witness shows up for questions, but then asserts actual privilege that has some precedent in court rulings (like direct comms with POTUS).

House Managers will challenge that, arguing and citing the few cases on the subject, where privilege is always balanced against the public's right to transparent government. If there's any proceeding in which privilege goes to zero, it would be an impeachment trial. Roberts would then have full authority to make that determination.

However, any ruling he makes could be overturned with a simple 51 vote majority. Because of that detail, I suspect Roberts is generally going to give deference to the Senate's authority over POTUS. Constitutionally this makes sense, sense the "sole power" to try impeachments is vested in the Senate.

If there's any tiny chance of Trump being removed, it would probably be for efforts to obstruct the trial itself. That could turn personal real quick.

The Senate doesn’t have “authority” over POTUS. They’re co-equal. They do have a check on abuse of power, which is why the legal professors the Democrats brought forth were so intent on defining that term.

Congress is welcome to challenge Trump’s assertions in court. Why haven’t they done so with any seriousness yet? Could it be because they don’t really want to narrow the application of Executive privilege. Remember that the door swings both ways on that. President Obama claimed Executive privilege plenty and openly dared Republicans to do something about it. Every President in the future will as well, especially if the precedent of non-stop attacks toward Presidents from Congress continues into future Presidents’ terms.

 

[Crazyhole]

Russia hacked Burisma holdings last november. I think it's safe to say if something was going on with the Bidens, we're going to find out about it now.

 

[sk8knight]

Russia hacked Burisma holdings last november. I think it's safe to say if something was going on with the Bidens, we're going to find out about it now.

Maybe Trump can call Putin and ask for a favor so he can get us the information.

 

[Nautiknight]

I don't understand why she would send them over. It will be a sham of a trial, McConnell already told her.

I will help you understand. Article 1 Section III and Article 1 Section V of the Constitution. The Senate per the same damn Constitution Nancy Pelosi cherishes has SOLE authority of the impeachment trial. She as speaker of the House has zero authority on the trial. Second, per the Constitution , each side of the legislative branch has SOLE authority to make their own rules. Each side is totally separate and Independent of the other. That's not my rules, it's the Constitution.

So, if Pelosi feels right to impeach the guy, she can. It's her house. Once she does that in order to complete the process she must send them to the Senate. Once there they can do what ever the hell they want and she as speaker has zero to say about it.

Now, it's my observation if the house wishes to impeach on partisan lines then how can anyone justify the Senate also not acting on party lines to get rid of it? You can't justify a house vote with no bipartisan support then ridicule for the Senate for also acting just like the House you support. This is the core problem with this impeachment. It's not largely supported by both parties so the result is what you see. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

 

[Crazyhole]

Maybe Trump can call Putin and ask for a favor so he can get us the information.

I dont think he'll have to ask. Imagine the damage Russia could do to public perception of our state and justice departments if they produce evidence that we knew something illegal was going on and we looked the other way. That's been their goal all along.

 

[UCFWayne]

Do you think igaf at this point? Hell, I might vote for Trump just because I think this country deserves to fail. The sooner we hit rock bottom, the sooner we can rebuild. Rome is busted.

please go ahead and vote for trump. you will benefit form him doing a good job in his second term.

 

[fried-chicken]

Russia hacked Burisma holdings last november. I think it's safe to say if something was going on with the Bidens, we're going to find out about it now.

They hacked them 2 months ago and we haven't heard anything so I guess using your logic it's safe to say that nothing was going on?

Or do we just wait forever?

 

[Crazyhole]

They hacked them 2 months ago and we haven't heard anything so I guess using your logic it's safe to say that nothing was going on?

Or do we just wait forever?

These things never come out right away. The Podesta hack happened quite a while before the release.

 

[fried-chicken]

These things never come out right away. The Podesta hack happened quite a while before the release.

I love it, especially later in the summer.

 

[Boosted87]

The Senate doesn’t have “authority” over POTUS. They’re co-equal. They do have a check on abuse of power, which is why the legal professors the Democrats brought forth were so intent on defining that term.

Congress is welcome to challenge Trump’s assertions in court. Why haven’t they done so with any seriousness yet? Could it be because they don’t really want to narrow the application of Executive privilege. Remember that the door swings both ways on that. President Obama claimed Executive privilege plenty and openly dared Republicans to do something about it. Every President in the future will as well, especially if the precedent of non-stop attacks toward Presidents from Congress continues into future Presidents’ terms.

I don't mean the Senate has authority over POTUS - I mean Roberts will have to balance the power of the Senate to compel information vs the power of POTUS to withhold it. And if there's any scenario where you'd fully pierce the concept of executive privilege, it's a Senate impeachment trial. And I don't think the courts are going to come into play. If the Chief Justice signs off on a subpoena, do you think a lower court judge is going to decide that subpoena is invalid? Likewise, if the Chief Justice outlines to the witnesses the bounds of executive privilege for the purposes of the trial, do you think that's going to get sent to a district court during the trial?

That's kind of my point. And I also think it was part of the Democrat fast track strategy. In theory, if they had waited in the house for immunity/privilege arguments to go to the Supreme Court, they weren't going to win any case that John Roberts didn't side with them. Regardless, that process would take months if fast tracked. But during the trial, Roberts can rule directly on these issues in real time.

 

[Crazyhole]

I don't mean the Senate has authority over POTUS - I mean Roberts will have to balance the power of the Senate to compel information vs the power of POTUS to withhold it. And if there's any scenario where you'd fully pierce the concept of executive privilege, it's a Senate impeachment trial. And I don't think the courts are going to come into play. If the Chief Justice signs off on a subpoena, do you think a lower court judge is going to decide that subpoena is invalid? Likewise, if the Chief Justice outlines to the witnesses the bounds of executive privilege for the purposes of the trial, do you think that's going to get sent to a district court during the trial?

That's kind of my point. And I also think it was part of the Democrat fast track strategy. In theory, if they had waited in the house for immunity/privilege arguments to go to the Supreme Court, they weren't going to win any case that John Roberts didn't side with them. Regardless, that process would take months if fast tracked. But during the trial, Roberts can rule directly on these issues in real time.

Interesting take. You may very well be right but I wonder at what level he would defer to the rules that the Senate puts forth. If the Democrats and fence riding republicans start by calling lower level administration employees, followed by the republicans calling either of the Bidens, he might feel that they've set their own precedent and everybody is now in play. It'll be interesting to see how they set their rules up front. It's my understanding that even national security issues are subject to open hearings during an impeachment hearing in the senate.

 

[Boosted87]

I will help you understand. Article 1 Section III and Article 1 Section V of the Constitution. The Senate per the same damn Constitution Nancy Pelosi cherishes has SOLE authority of the impeachment trial. She as speaker of the House has zero authority on the trial. Second, per the Constitution , each side of the legislative branch has SOLE authority to make their own rules. Each side is totally separate and Independent of the other. That's not my rules, it's the Constitution.

So, if Pelosi feels right to impeach the guy, she can. It's her house. Once she does that in order to complete the process she must send them to the Senate. Once there they can do what ever the hell they want and she as speaker has zero to say about it.

Now, it's my observation if the house wishes to impeach on partisan lines then how can anyone justify the Senate also not acting on party lines to get rid of it? You can't justify a house vote with no bipartisan support then ridicule for the Senate for also acting just like the House you support. This is the core problem with this impeachment. It's not largely supported by both parties so the result is what you see. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

I don't disagree with your statement regarding who's in charge of each part of the process. But here's the problem with the second part of your argument. We all know this is insanely politicized and is like team sports - defend your guys and crucify the other guy. In a case like impeachment, we should EXPECT a highly partisan process - particularly in today's landscape. But the presence of partisanship alone doesn't mean that one side doesn't have the balance of the facts in their favor. So a partisan process doesn't - on it's own - justify a tit-for-tat.

Now, if you think this is a sham process and the facts are heavily on the side of POTUS then sure - that's rationale for the Senate to behave similarly. But if the you believe the facts are against POTUS, then just because the House Republicans held their caucus together - when nearly every single swing district seat is currently held by a democrat - that alone isn't a good reason to dismiss it out of hand.

If the Democrats held a 2 or 3 seat advantage in the House, and narrowly impeached Trump with 2 or 3 Republicans (from blue districts) joining them - would that have changed anything? If the vote was 218 to 210 but you had 2 republicans vs 230-197 like we had?

 

[Crazyhole]

I don't disagree with your statement regarding who's in charge of each part of the process. But here's the problem with the second part of your argument. We all know this is insanely politicized and is like team sports - defend your guys and crucify the other guy. In a case like impeachment, we should EXPECT a highly partisan process - particularly in today's landscape. But the presence of partisanship alone doesn't mean that one side doesn't have the balance of the facts in their favor. So a partisan process doesn't - on it's own - justify a tit-for-tat.

Now, if you think this is a sham process and the facts are heavily on the side of POTUS then sure - that's rationale for the Senate to behave similarly. But if the you believe the facts are against POTUS, then just because the House Republicans held their caucus together - when nearly every single swing district seat is currently held by a democrat - that alone isn't a good reason to dismiss it out of hand.

If the Democrats held a 2 or 3 seat advantage in the House, and narrowly impeached Trump with 2 or 3 Republicans (from blue districts) joining them - would that have changed anything? If the vote was 218 to 210 but you had 2 republicans vs 230-197 like we had?

The final vote isn't where partisanship really came into play though. It was in the process of the intelligence and judiciary committees. That's the main issue that most republican congressmen had with Schiff and why they walked into the FISC. It wasn't exactly unexpected or unreasonable to expect a party line vote in the end, but what led up to it is pretty sketchy if the goal was really about justice.

 

[Boosted87]

Interesting take. You may very well be right but I wonder at what level he would defer to the rules that the Senate puts forth. If the Democrats and fence riding republicans start by calling lower level administration employees, followed by the republicans calling either of the Bidens, he might feel that they've set their own precedent and everybody is now in play. It'll be interesting to see how they set their rules up front. It's my understanding that even national security issues are subject to open hearings during an impeachment hearing in the senate.

I agree Roberts will defer to the rules of the Senate 100%. He really has no choice as any decision he makes can be overturned by a simple majority vote. So yea - if Republicans pass rules that grant POTUS certain privileges during the trial, then Roberts will defer to those rules. But assuming those aren't granted to him by the Senate in the rules, or Trump invokes executive privilege above and beyond those rules on a Constitutional basis, then Roberts would presumably make a ruling (that the Senate could overturn with 51 votes).

The situation that makes the least sense to me - Roberts rules in favor of Trump on some executive privilege argument but 51 Senators vote to overrule him. That's a case where the Chief Justice made a Constitutional interpretation in favor of POTUS against the Senate, but the Senate overrides essentially saying that in an impeachment trial, we get to do what we want. Who's right?

So the Senate either has full authority to handle the rules of impeachment trials OR they are subject to constraints the Judicial Branch applies to those rules. Precedent shows great deference from the courts to the Senate. I think it's HIGHLY unlikely Roberts would allow a scenario like the above to occur. I think he'll look at the rules - if the Senate granted POTUS certain privileges he'll rule accordingly. If they granted no privileges then he'll say POTUS has none.

 

[Boosted87]

The final vote isn't where partisanship really came into play though. It was in the process of the intelligence and judiciary committees. That's the main issue that most republican congressmen had with Schiff and why they walked into the FISC. It wasn't exactly unexpected or unreasonable to expect a party line vote in the end, but what led up to it is pretty sketchy if the goal was really about justice.

I get that and I think there's bones to pick on process for sure, but it's massively overblown. Most of the things house Republicans were complaining about were part of rules adopted while they were in the majority. They were complaining about identical practices to those used during the Benghazi depositions.

For example - not having agency counsel present at depositions. Adopted during investigations of Clinton, rules said that counsel for agencies under investigation may not attend. Same rule was adopted during Benghazi depositions. Same rule adopted during impeachment depositions.

The Benghazi hearings deposed 60 career civil servants. Imagine if Obama had issued an "Administration wide direction that Executive Branch personnel cannot participate in the Benghazi inquiry under these circumstances" - cause that's what the Trump Administration said. The fact that Trump fully obstructed the investigation and House Republicans rode along with him is far more responsible for the partisan nature of the inquiry than how the Democrats ran the inquiry.

 

[Crazyhole]

I get that and I think there's bones to pick on process for sure, but it's massively overblown. Most of the things house Republicans were complaining about were part of rules adopted while they were in the majority. They were complaining about identical practices to those used during the Benghazi depositions.

For example - not having agency counsel present at depositions. Adopted during investigations of Clinton, rules said that counsel for agencies under investigation may not attend. Same rule was adopted during Benghazi depositions. Same rule adopted during impeachment depositions.

The Benghazi hearings deposed 60 career civil servants. Imagine if Obama had issued an "Administration wide direction that Executive Branch personnel cannot participate in the Benghazi inquiry under these circumstances" - cause that's what the Trump Administration said. The fact that Trump fully obstructed the investigation and House Republicans rode along with him is far more responsible for the partisan nature of the inquiry than how the Democrats ran the inquiry.

I think some of that was a tit-for-tat response by the republicans, and when trump claimed executive privilege they fell in line because they were already pissed. Were the Democrats following precedent? Yep, but it did create an atmosphere of "you have no say, so just shut up". When Schiff said "they can call anyone they want, but we won't listen to them", that set the stage for this being hyper-partisan. He was well within his power to do so, so I can't complain too much. Nadler on the other hand had a much greater responsibility and he completely failed. He was tasked with determining whether a law had been broken, so he should have been much more judicial in how he acted and oversaw the proceedings. Just the fact that he failed to produce a crime in his articles shows that he fell flat in his job. And no, abuse of power isn't a crime, nor is obstruction of congress. Had they included "bribery" or "extortion" in the articles we would have a completely different scenario.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I think some of that was a tit-for-tat response by the republicans, and when trump claimed executive privilege they fell in line because they were already pissed. Were the Democrats following precedent? Yep, but it did create an atmosphere of "you have no say, so just shut up". When Schiff said "they can call anyone they want, but we won't listen to them", that set the stage for this being hyper-partisan. He was well within his power to do so, so I can't complain too much. Nadler on the other hand had a much greater responsibility and he completely failed. He was tasked with determining whether a law had been broken, so he should have been much more judicial in how he acted and oversaw the proceedings. Just the fact that he failed to produce a crime in his articles shows that he fell flat in his job. And no, abuse of power isn't a crime, nor is obstruction of congress. Had they included "bribery" or "extortion" in the articles we would have a completely different scenario.

What set the stage for this being a hyper partisan clown show was when Schiff outright lied about having met the whistleblower before the complaint was even filed.

 

[Boosted87]

He was tasked with determining whether a law had been broken, so he should have been much more judicial in how he acted and oversaw the proceedings. Just the fact that he failed to produce a crime in his articles shows that he fell flat in his job. And no, abuse of power isn't a crime, nor is obstruction of congress. Had they included "bribery" or "extortion" in the articles we would have a completely different scenario.

Scan through the Wikipedia entry for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" and you'll quickly see that what you're arguing has no basis. It's an effective talking point to the uninformed sure, but not if you're interested in a real discussion.

You'll find abuse of power listed several times on impeachment articles approved by the house prior to this one. Judge Charles Swayne was impeached for "Tyranny and oppression, and the abuse of powers of his office", among other things.

 

[Boosted87]

What set the stage for this being a hyper partisan clown show was when Schiff outright lied about having met the whistleblower before the complaint was even filed.

Or was it when DOJ and the Administration tried to find legal loopholes so they didn't have to transmit the complaint to the intelligence committee?

 

[UCFBS]

Or was it when DOJ and the Administration tried to find legal loopholes so they didn't have to transmit the complaint to the intelligence committee?

Partisan politics results in partisan solutions.