NBC News reports.
Just because he says "I don't have teams... I'm the team" doesn't mean he's the "I alone" guy. It just means he wants that image. It goes along with "I did nothing wrong": "I'm the team. I did nothing wrong." Those 2 thoughts go together because... people who hear them merge them into a demonstration of a clean conscience. But in real life, you can be innocent and stumble into saying and doing things that your antagonists can use to convict you.
Most people know the the saying, a man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. Who said that?
In 1966 the U.S. fantasy-comedy television series “Bewitched” broadcast an episode titled “Samantha for the Defense” which included a character depicting Benjamin Franklin who had magically been transported from the past. The Franklin character employed the adage, and another character credited the line to Abraham Lincoln:But who knows what Trump is really doing? Why is NBC assuming Trump is telling the truth? Isn't Trump an inveterate liar by NBC's lights? In any case, Trump just said, "I don't have teams, everyone's talking about teams." What does "team" mean? You can be the sort of person who doesn't do teamwork and still consult with other people, perhaps in more fluid, informal ways. It's funny that for all Trump's importance, there's so little knowledge of or even interest in how the man works. There are just narratives about what a genius or a screwup he is. We really are so dumb when it comes to Trump. No wonder he thinks he can beat us all singlehanded. Is that last line of mine a joke? Depends on whether you're doing the genius or the screwup narrative.
Darrin Stephens (Dick York): Mr. Franklin, couldn’t you defend yourself?
Benjamin Franklin (Fredd Wayne): No, that might be unwise, Sir. The man who defends himself in court has a fool for a lawyer and a jackass for a client.
Aunt Clara (Marion Lorne): Abraham Lincoln said that.
Benjamin Franklin (Fredd Wayne): Abraham who? Whoever, he stole it from me.
Posts
142 comments:
I love the name of the author of that NBC article: Shannon Pettypiece!
Impeachment doesn't require a lawyer, it requires PR. The law doesn't come into it.
As for PR, Trump's the teacher.
Impeachment is an election campaign.
In cruel neutrality land, there are neither geniuses nor doofuses to be found. Just people with funny names.
Anytime Trump identifies a member of his “team” he paints a target on them for the smear machine.
Trump is surrounded by criminals and self dealers. Who can he trust ? Look at the behavior of people he took into the administration on the recommendation of others. Flynn may be available soon although he may be distracted suing the perps who attempted to destroy him. They might not have much money left after the lawyers get done with them.
Trump didn't do anything wrong. This is a continuation of the corrupt Strozk-Clapper-Brennen-Hillary corruption Shcitt show.
Does Trump know what he's doing? What about those soldiers brought home, to Iraq, and now the new troops for Syria oil.
Good run through of the legal side of things here. Not sure that it matters since he won't be convicted in the Senate for political reasons, but still of interest.
Good discussion of how Trump managed to create this mess here. Not sure that it matters because the Senate will not convict, for political reasons.
Trump has a huge team. Ever hear about Barr, Sekulo , Pompey and Giuliani? The man who needs him a team today is Mr. Pence.
have you seen what rules, grand inquisitor Schiff operates under, according to Kimberly strassel,
NBC is very very concerned about Trump's welfare, aren't they?
Heartwarming.
Really.
Good summary of the house republican tactics here. Not sure that it matters.
rrhardin has it. Impeachment is a political act. It calls for politics, not law.
They are after Trump himself; the Republican Party is not that much of a threat.
ARM flushing down into serious news.
Here ARM - try this.
Watch: Crenshaw Busts Schiff, Points to Exact Rule in House Rules Book That Gives GOP Access to Impeachment Docs
Trump has good lawyers on this, don't be fooled by his PR work in this regard. He was a bit naive when he first ran, but he has learned the lesson from the Mueller Witch Hunt.
Also, I see National Review's one loyal reader has shown up again.
Kimberly Strassel
Behold the Lord High Impeacher.
The failure to vote on an inquiry allows Schiff to make up the rules as he goes along.
their concern is touching, it's striking the way the Ukraine, that the previous administration, left to fight with #hashtags and food rations, (well some of those mre, are dense when thrown) when this administration, has actually provided heavy weapons
Jonah Goldberg is one of those scummy losers on the right who would rather have Hillary Clinton soothing Jonah's diaper rash.
ARM continues his (in hindsight) inevitable descent into "argumentum via gif-dum".
To his credit, he has completely abandoned his laughable economic doom fantasies, as have most dems.
So there's that.
ARM seems to have morphed into she-who-will-not-be-named by linking articles rather than making his own analysis.
Some of us have already read those articles, dude.
Do you have a cogent opinion or a different take? That is why this site is interesting.
The best counter to the impeachment efforts is the exposure of The Deep State.
The public will recognize why, for example, President Trump relied on a non-Government individual, Rudy Giuliani, instead of relying on the State Department to deal with Ukraine. The State Department never would advance an investigation of the Bidens' corruption in Ukraine. Never ever.
Because our Deep State is treacherous, seditious and obstructionist, President Trump sometimes has to work around it and even against it.
-----
The bribing of Vice President Biden through his son Hunter is not a concern only of Donald Trump. That bribing should be a concern of all US citizens.
The State Department does not want that bribing to investigated. Furthermore, the State Department was complicit in the bribing.
In those circumstances, President Trump has been right to make that bribing a public issue, despite the State Department's cover-up of the bribing.
Starting with a-hole Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, the Democrats are nothing but scum. The lies and attempts to damage the president have been flowing for over 3 years now, while their work to bring this country down to their level has been going on for decades.
ARM continues to present pro-hillary fake-Cons "hot takes" as persuasive!!
LOLOL
its the same 10 to 15 losers over and over again!
Iowa voters are "impressed".......not!
Why would Trump play the game like the Democrats want him too? Maybe he doesn't like the script and is declining the starring role in this low rated melodrama the Democrats have authored.
I hear the President's use of "team", as meaning committee decisions are not to be. A commander, the decider, has staff, who advise. Staff members ought either implement, or resign.
Sidney Powell will be freed up from her current obligations soon. She is familiar with the process. She understands the bureaucratic rot. She's dogged and determined. I would very much like to hear her calling witnesses and asking questions on C-SPAN.
There would be more Democratic defectors than Republican when she was finished.
ARM
"Not sure that it matters."
The opinions of the people you are linking here, ARM, are counter-productive to any effort to convince people because you are linking to writers who have been colossally wrong for the last 4 years. You need to find pundits that Republicans and Independents could trust based on past performance.
"Impeachment doesn't require a lawyer, it requires PR. The law doesn't come into it."
You're assuming a law/politics distinction that doesn't exist in real life.
Trump has a complicated set of problems to deal with, and law certain does "come into it," in some places where it belongs and places where it doesn't. People are bringing it in when it suits them and in the form that is useful to them. "The law" itself is not an entity that's able to have principles about where it belongs and to not go where it doesn't.
That certainly doesn't mean that someone thinking in a rigidly formalistic legal way would be helpful to Trump, but the law experts in this area would not be that sort of person. Look at Giuliani. He's a lawyer.
Anyway, Trump does need legal advice so that he doesn't stumble into the traps that are set up for him. He may not trust anyone and want to just take his chances relying on his own instincts, but that's not because "The law doesn't come into it."
Please don't mistake my remarks to mean that I think the problem is completely or even essentially legal. And recognize that part of law is the analysis of the extent of law — figuring out where law ends and politics (and other things) begin. It's eternally contested, and, sure, PR, is part of what will determine who wins the contest.
Trump has managed to stay one step ahead of the sheriff for decades. This is not his first time at the rodeo.
The lead article is concern trolling at its worst/best (depends on your view point).
The media want Trump to look panicked, and Trump isn't going to give them this- when has he ever done that?
they aren't following any rules of due process, they are insisting on spectral evidence, or at least dubiously sourced info, it resembles salem or more to the point the warren hastings impeachment enquiry, of the 1780s,
Trump learned from his first day in Washington that the smaller the team, the fewer the leaks and insiders to testify against you.
He has a legal team.
What he needs are people who can take his cues and amplify his message.
Anything more will be used as evidence he did something wrong.
Trump has a long history of using lawyers, it is unlikely that he is ignoring them. But why should he act as the Democrats intend him too? Maybe he doesn't like the script and is declining the starring role in this low rated melodrama the Democrats have authored.
In anticipation of the sorrowful wailing, rending of garments and gnashing of lefty teeth come November 4, 2020, go ahead, Democrats, do your worst.
you saw the process john Chisholm put walker through, on steroids,
https://www.bartleby.com/268/6/3.html
Trump has Giuliani and Barr, two pretty good lawyers.
The Democrats are trying to drive Giuliani away but he is another fighter like Trump.
Impeach! Start that second Civil War! Socialist utopia or piles and piles of dead Democrats. One glorious future or another.
Polling data suggest this "one man against the world" messaging isn't working.
If the numbers that support impeachment are even half of what is being reported, he's losing.
This is what happens when everyone buys into the false narrative that Impeachment is just a political process and can happen for any reason.
Bullshit.
It's a legal process.
Maybe Trump can plea bargain it down to moping with intent to creep.
Liddy's standard example of a made-up charge.
Trump's a one man team.
A call for a team in this situation is a bunch of DC grifters looking to leak and set themselves up for life on CNN and with a plush book advance on trump’s impeachment: the inside scoop.
"they aren't following any rules of due process"
But what process is due? I think the legal answer is that it's up to the House to make whatever rules they see fit, because the Constitution commits the process of impeachment to the House. The courts (based on precedent) would say it's a "political question" and that there are no judicially manageable standards. The argument that there should be more process is a political argument addressed to the members of the House. Of course, that can include all sorts of analogies to court proceeds and legal-sounding things about fairness and accuracy.
What Trump is saying is that he does not want to take advice and act to a script devised by others. He wants others to speak in his defense but not on his behalf. He thinks he comes up with the best arguments having won the presidency that way.
I think the house should do everything in secret, and leak unverified damaging info on Trump to the media.
One irritating idea is the notion that Donald Trump needs to hire a pack of NeverTrumpers to run his "war room." Even George W. Bush figured out how useless the consultant class was. Don't do that.
Watching the political class frantically rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic is somewhat amusing, but on the whole pointless. Once Democrats are dragged to secret prisons- for "protection" from being Epsteined, of course- the game will really change.
Looking forward to it?
Rudy was a pretty good lawyer until the end of the 1980s. Then he switched to politics. He is now an old man of 75.
Trump has blown most other conventional wisdom out of the water, so I wouldn't be so bold as to assume he's not right this time too. With all our advanced technology and information today, our conventional wisdom has gotten less far wise. Today's culture blindly accepts more anti-factual, anti-science ideas than we have for centuries. We be gettin' dumber every day, at least some of us.
My impression of Trump's decision making so far is that he doesn't need advice on what to do. He just need the right information, and then he will probably see it differently from most and be right.
Trump has Giuliani and Barr, two pretty good lawyers.
Guiliani must have been a good lawyer, but now he is a crazy conspiracy theorist. He more than anyone is responsible for Trump going down this rabbit hole. Barr is not Trump's lawyer, Barr's client is the United States of America. If Barr participates in Trump's defense, they should both be impeached.
Impeachment is the political version of bloodletting as a medical procedure. It doesn't solve the problem you think you have, and it makes you weaker. Or you could use the witch trail as an analogy, becuase although you destroy your target, you debase yourself in the process. All that is left is regret, guilt, and loss.
The professor discovers macho.
So the same knuckleheads that think the Senate won't vote to convict Trump "for political reasons" can't get it through their thick heads that Democrats are trying to impeach Trump "for political reasons."
Hilarious.
Outside "advisors" who are likely Deep Republican Establishment who would more than likely only further sabotage the defense against this attempted coup of the elected government.
Ann Althouse said...
"they aren't following any rules of due process"
But what process is due? I think the legal answer is that it's up to the House to make whatever rules they see fit, because the Constitution commits the process of impeachment to the House. The courts (based on precedent) would say it's a "political question" and that there are no judicially manageable standards. The argument that there should be more process is a political argument addressed to the members of the House. Of course, that can include all sorts of analogies to court proceeds and legal-sounding things about fairness and accuracy.
******************
But "the House" is neither "the House of Adam Schiff, nor "the House of Nancy Pelosi", nor the House of the Democratic Minority".
The Constitution commits the process of Impeachment to the "House of Representatives", the entire body..
What a perversion of the Constitution itself, to imply that it grants a faction of the House the power to make rules that violate the Bill of Rights itself, in order to impeach a Constituitonal officer!!!
<>
Well, for starters, the process that is due would be for the House to observe their own rules that they themselves crafted and voted on to approve.
Here they are:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-116/pdf/HMAN-116.pdf
Among these rules is that documents are supposed to be available to all Members and delegates.
"(2)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), §796. Committee files. all committee records (including hearings, data, charts, and files) shall be kept separate and distinct from the con- gressional office records of the member serving as its chair. Such records shall be the property of the House, and each Member, Delegate, and the Resident Commissioner shall have access
thereto.
(B) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, other than members of the Committee on Ethics, may not have access to the records of that committee respecting the conduct of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House without the specific prior permission of that committee."
In prohibiting my Congressional representatives from viewing these documents for themselves, Schiff and his goons are violating the House's own rules. They're also taking out of my hands, and the hands of all constituents whose representatives are so excluded, the power to make our own views felt.
This is, of course, a political decision on Schiff's part, not a legal one.
A huge consequence of all the hysteria aimed at Trump and anyone associated with him is that Trump can not name anyone as being on the Trump team. If you are on Team Trump in DC you can't even take your family out to dinner without harrassment. Trump cannot name names. I have no doubt that he has a team but he is most certainly the front man and has to take all the flak himself or his subordinates won't be able to get anything done.
What process is due?
The question itself presumes that there is some level of "process" that is required -- after all, no process (which is what the Dems are pursuing) is . . . well, no process at all (which should be obvious).
The process that is due is at least the minimum to constitute process at all. Namely, notice, an opportunity to be heard, a basic ability to defend oneself, being able to know the witnesses and evidence against them and the ability to challenge the same.
All of which is being denied to Trump as if he were in some Kafka-esque, Orwellian Star Chamber like Josef K., which whenever it is conducted in public is like a show trial People's Court presided over by some modern-day Roland Freisler.
BleachBit-and-Hammers said... [hush][hide comment]
I think the house should do everything in secret, and leak unverified damaging info on Trump to the media.
And, make up stuff to fill in the blanks....
readering said...
Rudy was a pretty good lawyer until the end of the 1980s. Then he switched to politics. He is now an old man of 75.
With serious drinking and money problems.
Ann Althouse said...
"they aren't following any rules of due process"
But what process is due? I think the legal answer is that it's up to the House to make whatever rules they see fit, because the Constitution commits the process of impeachment to the House. The courts (based on precedent) would say it's a "political question" and that there are no judicially manageable standards. The argument that there should be more process is a political argument addressed to the members of the House. Of course, that can include all sorts of analogies to court proceeds and legal-sounding things about fairness and accuracy."
To sum up the House can make its rules up on the fly. However if the intent is to remove Trump then the House has to go to the Senate and the Senate can make up its rules on the fly. Such as demanding every least bit of work product along with audio tapes and transcripts etc to in essence have an evidentiary hearing followed by name every House member and their staffs as witnesses. They could have everything released to the public and put Schiff and Co. on the witness stand live on TV. In the meantime the DoJ is presumable doing a criminal investigation of a number of related things. If the indictments come, then the House will back track furiously as it's impeachment scam starts to fall apart.
Were I managing the Trump surrogates, I’d have them hammer on a single, simple message: why all the secrecy to Schiff’s proceedings? Why, when the testimony is not classified, are they still conducting themselves as though it were? There may be no particular process due besides what the House majority feels. But people know what a fair process looks like, and they know what underhanded political machinations aimed not at revealing the truth, but at perpetuating a particular narrative look like. Best would be to find some anti-Trump people of principle to go around discussing the damnable aspects of how Schiff&co are conducting themselves. Talk about nothing else but that. The soon to be released IG report and Durham grand jury will take care of the rest of the narrative. This is so simple and obvious that I agree Trump doesn’t need a war room. I also believe that the war room/team comments are largely directed at Bannon and his war room radio broadcasting team.
now he is a crazy conspiracy theorist.
Political scientist Freder telling us the Russia hoax is a "conspiracy theory."
Tell another joke Freder, That one flopped.
". Barr is not Trump's lawyer, Barr's client is the United States of America. If Barr participates in Trump's defense, they should both be impeached."
Since Trump is the duly elected President of the United States, I as a member of both that nation and the group that voted for him consider defending the President and the Presidency very much a duty of the Attorney General and the DOJ, just as it would be his duty to help impeach an illegal president. There is substantial evidence of a clear effort to illegally affect the election, and then to overturn it. Impeachment is just the latest tactic in that continuing effort. There can be no higher calling than getting the truth out on that issue. Nothing else comes close. How else, other than violence, is the nation to defend it's laws, principles, and Constitution against a party with power trying to overthrow an election?
When you are surrounded by haters and leakers...you learn not to trust anybody but yourself....THAT is probably why....It's a witch hunt anyways, and he knows the American people are smarter than the elites think they are....
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=art+of+the+deal&i=stripbooks&crid=KZWN7I7FOQ9F&sprefix=art+of+the+%2Caps%2C183&ref=nb_sb_ss_c_2_11
Freder Frederson said...
Trump has Giuliani and Barr, two pretty good lawyers.
Guiliani must have been a good lawyer, but now he is a crazy conspiracy theorist. He more than anyone is responsible for Trump going down this rabbit hole. Barr is not Trump's lawyer, Barr's client is the United States of America. If Barr participates in Trump's defense, they should both be impeached.
*******************
Giuliani is free to represent Trump as an individual, Just as Greg Craig and others represented Clinton during his impeachment.
Barr's client IS the POTUS, when it comes to matters regarding law enforcement. Barr is pursuing the potential criminal activities of people who acted to spy on Trump and his campaign, during the run-up to the 2016, and after his election.
Are you seriously saying that Barr can't do that? If so, why were AG Lynch and FBI head Comey able to pursue the investigation (which they whitewashed) of Hillary's handling of her email on a private server? Did you demand that they too recuse themselves???
SNORT
Ann Althouse said...
"they aren't following any rules of due process"
But what process is due? I think the legal answer is that it's up to the House to make whatever rules they see fit, because the Constitution commits the process of impeachment to the House.
But the house consists of more than just Nancy and Adam. The house voted not to go for impeachment....
More lawyers might just mean more money spent, time lost getting them up to speed and then, turf fights. So I don't see an outside group of lawyers as helpful. And anyhow, there's no legal advice that could keep the Dems sending impeachment to the Senate; they've decided to go for broke on this.
Dan Crenshaw has found that every member of the House has right to a full transcript of committee hearings but Shifty is refusing this access. Why not go down and nail 97 reasons why they should have access onto the SCIF door. Have Trump send Federal marshals to escort the Republicans on the Committee into the SCIF room. Have the Republicans block the Dems from going in unless the Republicans go in also. That sets up, for later stories on how illegal things and hidden things were done by Shifty.
The Goldilocks maxim: not too many, not too little, but rather just right.
"What a perversion of the Constitution itself, to imply that it grants a faction of the House the power to make rules that violate the Bill of Rights itself, in order to impeach a Constituitonal officer!!!"
What are the rules about how to make the rules that govern the internal activities of the House? They do what they do. Yes, you should criticize them, but they are following their own rules, and I don't see where the Constitution says there are rules about the rules. I think a federal judge just said that in a 75-page opinion.
The only remedy is political pressure and then voting in the next election. Criticize them and vote against them. That's it!
The people who assume Giuliani lost a step are projecting. The guy who broke the mob and fixed NYC (temporarily) has shown more strength of will and determination than anybody judging him. He's not infallible, of course. But he's had victories to gain his fame and fortune. He's succeeded against great odds. Plus he seems to have Trump's and America's best interests in mind.
I understand the need to attack Giuliani. The politics dictates as much. But reading the comments here reminds me of Giuliani's great achievements. And the paucity of achievement amongst his detractors is highlighted.
The MSM has lost all credibility. Politicians started with none. The polls with their skewed weights and flawed internals are trying to drive public opinion. They're just as flawed as the ones 10 days before the 2016 election that had Hillary up double digits. A good rule of thumb would be to add 6-8 to Trump's side while subtracting the same from the other side.
Republican pols would have to be complete fools to vote for conviction. So there is a chance.
" I don't see where the Constitution says there are rules about the rules.".
Are you saying the House can make internal rules to rob a citizen of their Constitutional rights?
What are the rules about how to make the rules that govern the internal activities of the House?
Powerline will help you.
More detail on Crenshaw's response to Schiff.
I wonder how it would go if a couple MAGA hat-wearing men in tactical gear stood in front of a polling location holding clubs.
According to Eric Holder, the AG's job is to be the President's "wing man", because that's "his boy".
"I think a federal judge just said that in a 75-page opinion."
*********
A citation would be...nice.
“What are the rules about how to make the rules that govern the internal activities of the House? They do what they do. Yes, you should criticize them, but they are following their own rules, and I don't see where the Constitution says there are rules about the rules. I think an Obama judge just said that in a 75-page opinion.”
Fixed that for you toots.
Tell us more about Hunter Biden, ARM.
Fredo said...
Barr is not Trump's lawyer, Barr's client is the United States of America
???
I thought, that the AG was the president's WINGMAN?
This is a “make them play by their own rules” opportunity for Congressional GOP and team Trump. Make them eat their hypocrisy. That’s best accomplished by pressure on reasonable Dems in Congress and prominent ones out of Congress, and by impressing on those remaining journalists who care about their reputations for fairness or at least consistency in their demands for how government officials conduct themselves when investigating their opposition. There are a handful of such journalists left.
No, Althouse. They are not following their own rules. That is a part of the problem.
And one cannot reasonably say "We are following the rule that we get to make whatever rule changes we want, when we want them." without intense public rebuke. That is why they maintain their silence about how they are ignoring the current tiles. This strategy depends on 100% corruption within the MSM. That is an unfortunate fact easily observed.
Sorry. You're wrong to assert an exercise of raw power is following rules. Such an exercise reveals the game. That is overly dangerous.
And that is why assassinations are my answer on a previous thread.
Maybe Trump has a high level of distrust of those who want to 'help' him.
"Powerline will help you."/"No, Althouse. They are not following their own rules. That is a part of the problem."
I didn't say a thing about whether they are following their own rules, so don't "No, Althouse me," and Power Line did not help me. Please look at the point I am making. I was addressing the question of whether there are constitutional due process rights here that are being violated. That's a different question!
"Sorry. You're wrong to assert an exercise of raw power is following rules."
You're wrong to say that I made that assertion.
It seems like only yesterday that Freder and ARM and readering et all were convinced Kavanaugh was a gang rape leader.
I bet they still think that.
Freder hasnt yet figured out Russua collusion was a hoax!!
Astonishing...but true!
Trump's idea of defense is still, here's the whistleblower. He is so far behind events. Meanwhile this process stuff will go nowhere if the testimony is dynamite. And it's been pointed out that the WH has been fight to make sure that former White House counsel only testify in closed session. No principle except to bitch and moan.
What are the rules about how to make the rules that govern the internal activities of the House?
I responded appropriately. I guess you don't like the House Rules as written.
Or maybe you just like snappy putdowns to commenters,
Ordering Barr to send the Marines to make Arrests under the 120,000 sealed Federal indictments might be the tactic Trump has planned. There will be a sudden shortage of criminal defense lawyer the next day. So Trump is graciously not hiring them. Although The Gitmo Tribunals are a specialty practice.
What are the rules about how to make the rules that govern the internal activities of the House? They do what they do.
"They do what they do." - repeated for clarity
What "they do" is ignore the rules that they, themselves, wrote. It is a raw power grab. The rules were published by Representative Crenshaw. Somebody above linked the existing rules.
You didn't type the exact words. Maybe you didn't want that implication.
Seems to me the Democrats are the ones in need of help. Despite an apparent attempt to entrap members of the current Administration and two years of a special prosecutor given the job to find the evidence laid out in front of him; Democrats have failed to make a compelling case for impeachment. At the same time, the new rules will be used against Democrats.
Barr is not Trump's lawyer, Barr's client is the United States of America.
Maybe Barr could be his wingman. You know. Like the last guy.
"Yes, you should criticize them, but they are following their own rules..."
It is this about which you are definitely wrong.
We can agree that the Constitution does not set forward the rules. But that is - decidedly - not what this statement means. You can try to make the statement "The Constitution does not set the rules" but that does not make valid the quotes part in this comment.
And ignoring the rules that exist to push a new set of rules is a raw power play.
Birkel said...
And that is why assassinations are my answer.
What was the question?
"The only remedy (sic) is political pressure and then voting in the next election."
And my answer to that is the threat of political violence.
That makes three options.
More on Schiff's rule making. From, Powerline, of course, quoting Kim Strassel.
[Schiff’s] rules mean he can issue that controlling decree about “only one” transcript and Democratic staff supervision of Republican members. It means he can bar the public, the press and even fellow representatives from hearings, even though they’re unclassified.
It means he is able to shield from scrutiny the whistleblower who prompted this impeachment proceeding. It means he can continue barring Republicans from calling opposing witnesses. It means he can continue refusing to allow White House counsel in the room to hear the accusations against the president.
Mr. Schiff apparently even believes his impeachment authority allows him to ignore longstanding rules. A recent letter from Republican members of the Intelligence Committee objected to Mr. Schiff’s new practice of withholding official documents. They listed nearly two dozen letters from the committee (to recipients ranging from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to White House counsel Pat Cipollone) that had not been uploaded to the committee repository—which, they note, violates House rules. Republicans aren’t even allowed to know what questions Mr. Schiff is asking.
Just another uninformed (according to Ann) commenter,
So....the House can be completely lawless when making their own rules about impeaching a President.
If that's the case, why can't they just go down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and shoot Trump in the Oval Office?
Would the public's only remedy be to vote them out of office?
The House can make up its own rules.
That doesn't mean that the House can demand grand-jury materials from the courts.
“But what process is due? I think the legal answer is that it's up to the House to make whatever rules they see fit, because the Constitution commits the process of impeachment to the House. The courts (based on precedent) would say it's a "political question" and that there are no judicially manageable standards. The argument that there should be more process is a political argument addressed to the members of the House. Of course, that can include all sorts of analogies to court proceeds and legal-sounding things about fairness and accuracy."
On one hand, Ann is right, that the house can do anything that they want in terms of Due Process. The Dems stripped most of those from the minority last December. BUT that doesn’t mean that the courts are going to treat the current investigation as a real impeachment investigation, giving them full subpoena power over the President, as the Supreme Court did To some extent with Nixon. Shifty Schiff knows he doesn’t have that power, to override Executive Privilege, which is why his committee’s “subpoenas” are no such thing, since they lack judicial enforcement. That is why they try to combine A1S1 Oversight and A1S2 Impeachment in one paragraph. Notably, at the end of their “subpoenas”, they don’t, and can’t, insure compliance through judicial enforcement, but rather with mere Contempt of Congress (which would have to be enforced by AG Barr’s DOJ). They are pretending to use Their Oversight power to engage in an Impeachment investigation. But their Oversight authority, for the most part, doesn’t extend to the White House and Trump, and the House Dems going to court to enforce their “subpoenas” over the President and his close staff are going to be on the wrong side of a Separation of Powers dispute. And the Dems are not desperate enough to try to overcome Executive Privilege with an Impeachment inquiry invoked by a single person (Speaker Pelosi), instead of through a majority vote of the House.
My impression reading this piece on due processis that regardless of Schiff's claims he is violating the substance of "procedural due process" as it has been understood for a long time. That certainly weakens any case that he may bring for impeachment. Interesting to note that the last vote of the whole House on impeachment was overwhelmingly in the negative. In that case where (other than seizing it) does Pelosi get the power ro proceed with" impeachment" should Trump resist as he should?
The rules are whatever we let them get away with.
Ultimately Schiff’s tactics are viewed as illegitimate by the people he has to convince, so the rules are working to Trump’s favor, even though it would be even more to Trump’s favor if this stuff was done in the open with the right of cross examination. At that point, the whole house of cards would collapse. Schiff is trying to build his house of cards where it will not be possible for a stray puff of wind or a bump of the table to collapse it, but still no luck.
Unless and until the Democrats play fair, no “findings” of their secret Soviet style hearings are going to change any minds. Legality doesn’t matter as much as political legitimacy, which the media can’t award them, hard as they might try.
Freder has to attack Giuliani to maintain his deluded belief that the Ukraine did not interfere in the 2016 election on Trump’s behalf and therefore only conspiracy nuts like Giuliani believe that this was published in the New York Times in August of 2016.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html
Ripped right from the pages of Ukrainian intelligence files, and provided to the Democrats by Ukrainian politicians after the Obama Administration met with the Ukrainians and asked for dirt on Trump! Ukrainians have officially acknowledged this.
This is why ARM stays away from attempts at factual assertion, he knows that he would soon be proven wrong.
"Tell us more about Hunter Biden”
He did “nothing wrong.” Same as Hillary did “nothing wrong” in taking hundreds of millions from the Russians. That wasn’t “emoluments” at all whatsoever. Because it says right in the Constitution that the emoluments clause only applies to Republicans.
Althouse is right and I am not kissing ass.
The House can do what it wants. It is up people who believe in due process to punish them in the voting booth for their misbehavior.
That would be on “Hillary’s behalf...”
First time I have been censored.
Cool.
One thought I have had about this process is that the Dems are in the process of turning Trump into a sympathetic character - an underdog if you will. We all know how Americans root for the underdog - whether they should or not.
The Schiff process is a farce and, regardless of how "legal" your analysis, it is clear to anyone paying attention that it is and always has been intended as a railroading. Never mind crying about "due process"; think about Americans' sense of "fair play". It will be impossible to convince Republicans that the process is fair and, I believe, it will also be difficult to convince independents as well as we get past the initial excitement.
If, as seems probable, a number of the stars of the coup are indicted and standing trial a year from now that is not going to help convince the independent voter that there is any substance to the Dems wild accusations. I certainly hope that is the direction we are going given Durham's upgrade to a criminal investigation.
Crenshaw did a tremendous service to point out that Schiff is actually violating House rules. Can legal action be brought to release the transcripts; does any one know?
@ Bruce Hayden Thanks for your comments on due process. I agree with you that there appears to be an inherent weakness in the Dems process and that at some point it will fall under the scrutiny of the courts.
As far as Trump not having a team: you and I know damn well that he would not go forward without good legal counsel. He is not an idiot.
well leahy's former chief of staff, you didn't know that about beryl Howell, just like podesta was one of his body snatchers, in the confirmation wars,
Thanks for the link to "quote investigator" website. If anyone wants to know what a "fact checker" website should look like, follow that link and read the article. Perhaps it is easier to principled and honest when one is dealing with a relatively non-political/non-controversial question like this one. But when you read this, you feel like the article is presenting you with the facts and allowing you to draw your own conclusions, while providing the guidance of their expertise.
another point, that the zampolit Howell, elides is the grand jury material, concerns persons not indicted or even referred for prosecution, one notes that maria butina, who may or may not have had a relationship with the ceo of overstock, was expelled yesterday,
Francisco D,
Nobody is arguing the House cannot exercise raw power. But that does not mean the House is following the House's rules. They're not.
And it is important to recognize that this is all an exercise in raw power.
That's a bad look. It's a political loser. So when Crenshaw makes the point that the rules aren't being followed, it is effective to broadcast his accurate point.
Most people know the the saying, a man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client.
My late brother, with zero experience or education in law, sued the State of Arizona in a civil case. He completed and filed the paperwork by researching law resources and then represented himself in court against state attorneys. He won a judgment of $100,000.
He even had to borrow a suit from me because he didn't have one of his own.
Whether the process employed by the Dems is technically legal or not is beside the point. If the left can’t convince the public that their efforts are fair then little else matters. And as the voters hear about secret meetings and secrets witnesses, it pegs their bullshit meters. It won’t fly.
We need a Joseph Welsh to destroy Schiff.
Interesting that people assume Trump's legal team is for DEFENSE. I think this is a point Hardin misses. Trump will fight the PR war on offense. And for that he needs a good legal team because he is out to prove prior malfeasance.
Heyboom: The saying usually used for defendants. But I hope your brother put the extra 30 percent to good use and bought himself a suit. Or else what will he do for family weddings and funerals?
Of course, Heyboom, I post and then re-read. Moderation does make it harder to delete. RIP.
Drago, what no eastern front reference?
And it is important to recognize that this is all an exercise in raw power.
Of course Birkel. And it is important for people to understand what they are doing.
Rules? What rules? We don' need no stinkin' rules (according to the majority).
Who can sanction them if they fail to follow the rules and have both the majority and overwhelming Media air cover?
The left faction of the House Democrats is committed to the impeachment of Donald Trump. They just don't know for what yet. Thus the "inquiry" by the several committees charged with turning over rocks and scout around until they find something, anything, that will serve the purpose with perhaps a little artful editing. When that is found, and they are sure it is there to be found, it will be trumpeted throughout the media and presented to the full House for a vote to start regular impeachment proceedings against the President.
heyboom,
I am sad I never had the opportunity to meet your brother.
He sounds pretty awesome.
When has the media been right about anything going on in the Trump white house? Also how could you put together a team of lawyers for the kangaroo court going on right now in the basement of congress? Maybe Trump should call up old Soviet politburo members and pick their brains on what to do when an out of control star chamber comes after you.
The Highlight of Bewitched was Paul Lynde as "Uncle Arthur". And "Aunt Clara". I never saw the B&W episodes, since they were never shown in 70's reruns. Random Thought: Its amusing that as a kid in the 70's I never realized that Dick York and Dick Sargent were too different people! I was like, "Yeah, Darren's a little different this episode".
Another thing that struck me as kid, getting back to your booze post, was that everyone on Bewitched was asking for a drink when they walked in the door. But the witches/warlocks never drank.
Of course, I had no idea who agnes Morehead was, or that Elizabeth Montgomery was the daughter of a famous actor Robert Montgomery, or that Maurice evans was a famous English actor or anyone of that.
Due process determines the validity of the law itself, rather than being determined by the law. It has to follow a few rules of fairness.
One being that conviction has to be against the best possible defense, in particular not against no defense as is happening now. To get the best possible defense there's confronting witnesses against you etc.
"Conviction" means whatever the end goal of the process is. So it would apply to campus sex crime proceedings for example, too; and that's why people talk about due process there even though it's an internal matter leading to expulsion, say.
I propose solution:
House Leadership from Capitol Step Announcement - Impeachment of President Donald J Trump has been recorded.
Punishment has been meted : cue Kathy Griffin video with Head.
Official historian Author Naomi Wolf!
Do it on Halloween.
@Bruce Hayden: so a faction of the House majority, a fraction of the Legislative, Branch can make rules to set in motion the effective removal of the head of the co-equal Executive Branch, ignoring all constitutional restrictions on government power applying in any *other* case.
To date there's been no vote by "the House of Representatives" to set in motion the impeachment process, only Pelosi's imperious decree that one has begun.
So you agree that the Executive Branch can tell the House to go pound sand, because the House rules don't comport with the Constitutional requirement that impeachment be brought by "the House of Representatives", an entire legislative body, NOT just the Majority Leader, and certainly NOT the head of the Intelligence committee.
(Historically, impeachment proceedings are handled by the Judiciary committee.)
Does anyone really think this passes for common sense, let alone "legality"?
The House can purport to set extra-constituional rules that the Executive can ignore, rules that relate to removal of the head of our government?
ESPECIALLY WHEN DUE PROCESS AND FAIRNESS ARE INGRAINED IN OUR POLITICAL THINKING, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF OUR GOVERNMENT, AND ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUION ITSELF?
SNORT
Consider this scenario:
Trump is impeached. Recognizing the House proces as a travesty, the GOP-controlled Senate votes down removal. Trump wins in 2020. Somehow the Dems retain their House majority.
The day Trump is inaugurated, Pelosi announces a new impeachment inquiry, and Schiff restarts his secret investigations. Years of turmoil and gridlock ensue.
Does anyone think the Framers of our Constitution would consider this what they intended? Or the states, when they ratified the Constitution AFTER demanding the addition of the Bill of Rights?
************
Our constitutional law prof blogmistress has claimed that this issue has already been adjudicated, but she offers no citations. Curious.
Myself, I wonder how it could have been addressed, since this situation has never happened before. During the Clinton impeachment, for example, both political parties in the House agreed to rules governing the proceedings.
So I ask: Who were the plaintiff(s) and the defendant(s) Althouse alludes to; what was the nature of the complaint; and what was the holding of whatever federal court that issued its opinion.
Especially since federal courts don't issue advisory opinions, one strains to understand how the perfesser's claim could be true.
So, Miss Ann: stand and deliver!!!
Chris Wallace said ...
“You can make [the] argument [that Democrats are being unfair], but if you look back during Benghazi when that was being investigated by [Republican] Trey Gowdy, they had hearings in private and depositions in private. You try to build your case, figure out who are the witnesses that can say something and who can’t. Then you will end up holding public hearings anyway.”
Thanks readering.
And thanks Birkel. He was such a smart and talented guy. Artist and musician, self taught. Drug addiction took him way too soon.
ALthouse said:
"But what process is due? I think the legal answer is that it's up to the House to make whatever rules they see fit, because the Constitution commits the process of impeachment to the House. The courts (based on precedent) would say it's a 'political question' and that there are no judicially manageable standards. The argument that there should be more process is a political argument addressed to the members of the House. Of course, that can include all sorts of analogies to court proceeds and legal-sounding things about fairness and accuracy."
Didn't D.C. district court judge Beryl Howell just rule that DOJ had to give Mueller's grand jury material because the impeachment inquiry was a "judicial process"? NBC reported: "'Contrary to DOJ’s position — and as historical practice, the Federalist Papers, the text of the Constitution, and Supreme Court precedent all make clear— impeachment trials are judicial in nature and constitute judicial proceedings," Howell wrote."
Grtanted, the judge was discussing an impeachment trial, which occurs in the Senate. But if so, wouldn't that mean that the SENATE (as opposed to the House or one of its committees) can obtain the grand jury material?
In any event, there seems to be some sort of conflict between Althouse (impeachment is not judicial) and Howell (impeachment is judicial).
ARM quotes Chris Wallace thinking, perhaps, that makes his case. Wallace is the son of the despicable Mike whose word was never reliable.
I personally know a couple of people slandered by Mike Wallace. No ethics at all.
ARM,
Your citations of NeverTrump are a constant fucking delight.
Birkel and I agree on something!
In which readering feigns a misunderstanding of sarcasm.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Chris Wallace said ...
“You can make [the] argument [that Democrats are being unfair], but if you look back during Benghazi when that was being investigated by [Republican] Trey Gowdy, they had hearings in private and depositions in private. You try to build your case, figure out who are the witnesses that can say something and who can’t. Then you will end up holding public hearings anyway.”
*************
As usual, you and Wallace offer an inapposite, indeed an INANE argument. The Benghazi issue contained national security issues, wrt to how the US was tracking what was going on, real time, inside that country.
NO such arguments exist wrt to impeachment.
On top of that, Benghazi occurred during the Obama administration, yet the GOP House majority honored requests by the administration not to make the proceedings public.
In Schiff's case, he has closed off GOP participation into a proceeding that does not involve national security, and has told the Republicans FU.
Face it, Beloved, you're as dumb as a double-wide full of unbought Michelle bios.
Ever notice how some can give it but not take it?
As a non-entity in these comment sections, has readering noticed readering never gives nor takes 'it' at all?
Non-sequiturs and flippancy l, with nothing more, are worthless.
Alyhouse said' " I was addressing the question of whether there are constitutional due process rights here that are being violated. That's a different question!"
I believe you are right. It is up to the House to investigate and impeach. The constitution is rather vague on what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" However the democrats aren't following the Houses own written rules and procedures. It appears that Shiff is making this up as he goes along. I stand by my previous prediction that the democrats on the committee are hiding the fact that some of them are financially involved in the Ukraine mess. The plan now(prediction) is going to be to discredit Barr and Dunham.
Post a Comment