That's the first quote they have, and isn't it a shame, because they have this theory of what's going on in the heads of the various GOP Senators and they can't get the Senators to cough it up.
We're told Ron Johnson had a "coy smile" when he said that.
The article notes that the GOP Senators (if the House impeaches) will be able to choose whether to do a "lengthy trial" or to entertain a motion to dismiss and get dismissal and get it over very quickly.
The Democratic senators who remain in the presidential race have all said publicly that the impeachment proceedings are more important than political concerns...Ha ha. They won't cough up their inner thoughts either!
Here are 2 GOP Senators who talk about the 2 options (trial or motion to dismiss) and speak, of course, only in terms of what is the right procedure:
“This is going to require a great deal of work, and I don’t think it should be rushed through,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is up for reelection in 2020. Collins said any attempt to dismiss impeachment at the outset of a trial would be met with vocal opposition by a “lot of senators, who’d have misgivings and reservations about treating articles of impeachment that way.”...
“The sooner we’re done with this, the better,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). “Why just have people sitting around for this partisan sham? As soon as we possibly can dismiss this or vote along party lines, especially if the Democrats in the House limit the witnesses, I’ll move to do that.”
Posts
244 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 244 of 244"We are planning to see the new Eastwood flick, "Jewell" which is about the FBI frame job on the Atlanta security guard."
i'm looking forward to that one.
If you read Section 5 carefully you'll see that it requires that a "Journal of its proceedings" must be kept in all circumstances.
The secrecy clause allows them to keep the Journal secret.
A roll call vote is required if one fifth of those present demand it.
This roll call vote must, according to the first clause, be kept in that Journal.
They can keep the Journal secret if a majority votes to do so, but they MUST record the vote in the Journal.
Keeping it secret would be tough to pull off.
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
Browndog,
They won't do a secret ballot because it won't protect them from blowback in a conviction.
I agree the possibility is remote. At the same time, Impeaching Trump over a phone call even after Trump released the transcript, and every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the federal government coming forward to testify against the President to further his impeachment is...
...very, very remote.
U.S. embassy had pressured the Ukraine prosecutors in 2016 to drop or avoid pursuing several cases, including one involving the Soros-backed AntiCorruption Action Centre and two cases involving Ukraine officials who criticized Donald Trump and his campaign manager Paul Manafort.. - John Solomon
So Yovanovitch was ordering Ukraine prosecutors to lay off of prosecuting Ukraine officials (who interfered in US elections by dumping dirt on Manfort) for election interference? He has the docs from Ukraine. They got some brass balls are they are stone cold stupid.
This is like the biggest story ever and nobody will pick it up.
Browndog
No one is disputing the senate can set the rules for the trial. But those rules cannot override express restrictions in the constitution. They cannot decide 51% suffice for a conviction, or 3% suffice for that matter. They cannot decide the postman from Altoona presides. They cannot expel Republican Senators with a 51% vote until they pare down the no votes. They cannot use the rules to override express conditions in the constitution.
So they can vote a rule to make the vote secret, and pass that with 51%. And then 20% demand a roll call on the vote to be recorded, under the article quoted above, and the secrecy is gone. So secrecy is a fantasy.
And as Yancey and I have both explained, even with 81 senators it’s still a fantasy as the no voters simply announce their votes.
You can only get secrecy when 100 senators agree ... :)
eramos poco, (there were few then this happened,)
https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/14/muellers-ethically-challenged-pit-bull-andrew-weissmann-joins-nbc-as-legal-analyst/#.Xc3Jc74nP8I.twitter
Rabel
No. See Volokh's article. He addresses that.
If John McCain were still around, I could see them going the secret ballot route and nuking the Republican Party. He’s was just that kind of quisling to his party.
as pointed out, earlier, the only real action against privat bank, the inner nesting doll, has happened in the zelensky era,
And Steve Uhr shows what a lousy lawyer he is:
"Anyone who thinks that all the testimony yesterday was hearsay that would be inadmissible at trial should look at the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule. Fed rule evidence 801(d)(2)(E). Trump didn’t act alone. He had lots of help from lots of people. Their statements would be admissible against him at trial."
Taylor and Kent are not co-conspirators, Steve. Neither one had first hand knowledge. If the Democrats want to target someone as a co-conspirator to get hearsay into the trial, they will have to find a witness we haven't heard from yet- none of the previous witnesses to date fit the bill.
However, feel free to make your case that Taylor, Kent, Yovanovich, Sondland, Morrison, etc. are co-conspirators or have offered evidence hearing Trump ask for a quid pro quo. None have.
by the imf which had looked the other way, in the poroshenko era,
Pelican Brief + Senate Votes Harvest.
As Yakov Smirnoff say
Whatacountry.
BleachBit-and-Hammers said... [hush][hide comment]
whatever strategy works to inflict the most pain on corrupt liar Adam Schitt and Nancy Pelousy - do it.
I think Blogger Greg the class traitor @4:08 p.m. laid it out pretty good.
Made me smile, anyway.
Polling the Jury.
Can Trump ask
"Rabel
No. See Volokh's article. He addresses that."
If we're reading the came article then he addresses it but does so incorrectly:
"That seems to provide a clear rule governing the matter: If 1/5 of the Senators oppose a secret ballot, the yea and nay votes "shall … be" made public..."
"Parts" clearly refers to parts of the Journal not parts of the proceedings.
"shall … be" made public..." comes out of his ass, not the Constitution.
It's right there in black and white.
Holy Crap.
He also testified he was aware of pressure the U.S. embassy also applied on Ukraine prosecutors to drop investigations against a journalist named Vitali Shabunin, a parliamentary member named Sergey Leschenko and a senior law enforcement official named Artem Sytnyk.
Shabunin helped for the AntiCorruption Action Centre that Soros funded, and Leschenko and Sytnyk were criticized by a Ukrainian court for interfering in the 2016 US election by improperly releasing or publicizing secret evidence in an ongoing case against Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
Guess who met Sytnyk in the WH? None other than our esteemed secret whistlebloswer Ci*ramella.
https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1193579296062705664
Blogger Ken B said...
Rabel
No. See Volokh's article. He addresses that.
Volokh is not the final word on legal doctrine. He's been wrong several times, primarily after he sold out, which is why I consider him the Snopes of legal fact checking.
The McIntyre thread I have been reading as he constructed it. I still like my theory that Shokin, as he was being pressured by the various foreigners to do more to fight corruption, decided to target Burisma specifically because Biden's son was being paid outlandish fees for doing nothing, and it was exactly that targeting that caused everyone to suddenly want him fired. The bit from Leschenko is pretty damning, in my opinion, though he tried to put a different spin on it all. McIntyre makes a pretty good case that all of the push against Shokin started immediately after the NYTimes story about Hunter Biden and Burisma in December of 2015.
Ken B wrote: Based on what we see from the House, it won’t be a long trial. It won’t take much to shred the case. There will be grandstanding, and (I hope) prolonged evisceration of some of the witnesses, but it won’t take that long because there is — so far — no case to answer.
I'd love to see Senator Harris (after balking at recusing herself) grandstand and say "Dude gotta go -- and by the way, vote for me." Her camp is probably coaching her already on how to sugarcoat the grandstanding.
It is little wonder that Democrats are trying to keep the whistleblower under wraps at all costs. Problem is that the law doesn’t protect him if his report progresses to legal proceedings.
The idea that they are trying to protect the identity of a person that anybody and everybody who cares to know, knows his name is the lamest crap imaginable. They are protecting their case from being blown wide open. *The impeachment is the cover up*. It’s like one of those movies. It’s so bizarre.
Steve Uhr goes for the Gold
true, and zylochevsky, is the relatively easy pray, he was more associated with the old regime, where as kolomoisky, probably funded half the verkovna rada (their parliament) any questions why they slow marched the process,
https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-real-ukraine-controversy-an-activist-u-s-embassy-and-its-adherence-to-the-geneva-convention/
Jeezum Crow is all I can say.
New York Times caught in several, well, let’s just call them ‘mistakes’ even though they all run in the same direction, a direction which you can guess.
yes it's like a story arc in the black list, or my old home town favorite, burn notice, you had intel (cofer, who was prospecting in Africa, namely sudan where he was stationed) you have finance in alper, who worked for everything from morgan to renaissance capital, who are they the ones that coughed up 500 k for bill Clinton, which streamlined the acquisition of guistra's uranium one, by rosatom, and then you haved 'reformed' communist, kvasnievski, and then in left top square, you have hunter 'ellis' biden,
or you can refer to hans gruber, the terrorist turned gangster, in die hard 'if you steal 100,000 (paraphrasing) they won't bother, but if you steal 20 million, they will come looking for you,' and if they steal 5 billion, how much more,
well actually that turned not to be true, much like with the swiss banks they went after the whistleblower, and left the banks alone with their ill gotten lucre,
https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/14/muellers-ethically-challenged-pit-bull-andrew-weissmann-joins-nbc-as-legal-analyst/#.Xc3Jc74nP8I.twitter
Somebody should shoot Weissmann. Not me. I have grandchildren. He is pond scum.
Ukraine has been the U.S.'s bitch since the fall of the Soviet Union. Meaning, the bitch of the State Dept. and CIA.
It's the first place Brennan went to when the 'coup' became a contingency if Trump got elected.
Of interest, is the rates Burisma charges for natural gas (2x), primarily after Hunter Biden joined the board.
I mention this for no reason whatsoever.
Fullmoon, I thought that had to be a joke!
and the supply they provided, this keys into naftogaz, which was one of the lobbyists in contact with colonel vindman, if you cut the orange that way. but Ukraine was the beneficiary of sachs and summers shock therapy, which worked as well as it did for jack Nicolson, this created the Kuchma ruling cadres, that lutsenko cut his teeth opposing, yes the same lutsenko after serving as interior minister, in the orange revolutions, he was forced out by a corrupt prosecutor, Ukrainian for Chisholm, who himself actually fell afoul of the law, so not like Wisconsin or texas, he took his appeal all the way to the eu courts,
lutsenko did serve time, for some bogus charge, he was not an attorney, but as a leader of the maidan movement, poroshenko was obligated to appoint him, as general prosecutor, following an interval after shokin's dismissal,
Michael K regarding Sinema: I see AZ Democrats threatening to primary her so you know she is smarter than they are.
She is actually a very pleasant surprise. I've emailed her several times thanking her for her sensible actions. I hope McSally shapes up in time for the election next year---she's not a shoe-in for that seat. Her last campaign was lackluster at best and I've never quite forgiven her anti-Trump position.
President Trump is live now at his Rally in Louisiana. He's waving around the letter from the Ukraine President, and the Ukraine Foriegn minister, that explains, no representative of the United States ever conditioned self defense aide on investigating anything.
This bribery thing was never real. Now Pelosi is forced to call the President of Ukraine a liar.
Now Pelosi is forced to call the President of Ukraine a liar.
:-) Who could claim that Trump isn't smart?
"Now Pelosi is forced to call the President of Ukraine a liar."
Oh, no.. This is proof, man. Trump is making him say that.
The Journal must record the votes if 1/5 require it
Congress can vote to keep parts of the Journal secret.
It still can't stop some member from getting a copy of the recorded Yeas and Nays, and releasing them
This whole thing got kicked off by someone leaking "secret" information
It's not going to happen
I want to know how and why the so-called whistle-blower, Mr. Caramello - who was FIRED because he was leaking confidential info to the press - how/why he was re-hired by the CIA.
Anyone find that astonishing?
Fuggageddabout it Jake.
It's Deep State town.
Congress can vote to keep parts of the Journal secret.
____&&&&____
Please use correct terminology.
2 Journals House and Senate.
And as Yancey and I have both explained, even with 81 senators it’s still a fantasy as the no voters simply announce their votes.
In The Collapse of the Third Republic: An Inquiry into the Fall of France in 1940 William L. Shirer deals with the final decision of the French government to surrender. The conclave of leaders was faced with two choices: Either relocate the government to Algeria (which was at the time, officially, not a colony but an integral part of Metropolitan France) and continue to fight on, or surrender to the Nazis and get the best deal they could.
At the time Shirer was researching the book, most of the players were still alive, and he makes an ironic remark to the effect that Given that every person present maintains he voted to continue the fight, it is difficult to understand how surrender obtained a majority.
Ie: Everybody will claim to be a 'no' vote.
Trump has said he didn't, and doesn't, think Joe Biden is going to win the nomination, and this could be true. (he has mentioned otherwise that Biden failed (two times) to win the nomination) and Obama picked him up from the (ash heap of history? - not his expression) Of course being a former vice president is a different circumstance.
I think Trump would have been motivated just simply because something wrong with Biden would have been a big embarrassment to the Democratic Party, and maybe enable him to make an argument against the Obama Administration - nothing very specific of great benefit. I don't think he would base his strategy on being able to pick his opponent. I think he's always considered that that's beyond him, and any effects are unpredictable.
He's never shown any signs of trying to do that by other, more open, methods, like public statements or tweets. He doesn't favor any opponent. He does tend to attack more whoever gets more attention in the news.
Finding Joe Biden corrupt would simply be a thing of interest to him, but secondary to sort of vindicating himself, or equalizing himself with regard to foreign election meddling in 2016 He;d like to show there was a lot of help that went to the other side.
Both things, I think, were more ego than practical political advantage.
"He;d like to show there was a lot of help that went to the other side.”
It did, it’s right there in the archives of the New York Times. His former campaign manager is in jail right now due to leaks of a “Black Ledger” out of Ukraine that was hand written. Happy to link it for the umpteenth time.
steve uhr said...
Nothing to hide Drago? Well then I look forward to his testimony under oath at his trial. Oh wait- that would be a perjury trap. What’s an honest president to do?
11/14/19, 1:06 PM
You're a bad person, and God will punish you.
Post a Comment