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.”
पोस्ट्स
२४४ टिप्पण्या:
244 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»My prediction is that the Schiff show has gone so badly that Nancy won't even schedule a vote by the full House.
Epic failure.
Schiff is the scapegoat.
Should every Senator running for POTUS sit out a Senate trial? It's such a clear conflict of interest.
If it makes it to the Senate then six months should be plenty of time to conduct a full and fair trial.
My prediction is that there will be no Senate trial because it provides Trump the opportunity to defend himself and to highlight the shenanigans of the Deep Staters.
I think it would be irresponsible for senators to say how they will vote before they are presented with the findings of the House.
Graham said last week if the whistleblower didn’t testify the Senate would dismiss charges. Now he’s waffling. I hate these people with no spine or guts.
heh. F*ck with the corrupt D's. I love it.
I agree Francisco - though that is all the more reason for Republicans to push for one. Let's see if @Dave Begley is correct.
NYT: “You guys are planning to laugh when we step in it, aren’t you?”
“Don’t step i it, then.”
NYT: “You know we can’t do that."
They have to have a trial. It’s like a spittoon, one long disgusting string.
One trimester? Perhaps two. Never twelve or more. Whatever it takes to conceive and birth an impeachable burden for this President and his successor.
Horowitz and Durham will almost certainly have weighed in by then. I'm guessing the consequences of their investigation will have a major impact on how the Senate handles an impeachment referral, and it will not be to the liking of the Democrats who foolishly threw the pebble that started an avalanche.
My favorite thing about this whole episode is that only 5-6 years ago all the screeching you heard from Dems and the MSM was that Republicans were on their way to being a permanent 'rump' party in the USA
Republicans now...
Senate
SCOTUS
POTUS
Majority of State legislatures
Majority of State Governors
But not Mayors. Womp Womp.
I guess the new Dems will need to re-form themselves (a la 'Old Dems' aka Birth Of A Nation) and run around in sheets before they can rise again to reclaim their birthright.
just for fun;
The Senate trial should continue until AFTER the election, then vote for removal
So, President Trump would have to step down in Dec, 2020; and Pence would be President until Jan, 2012; at which point President Trump would resume power
Oh the GOP won’t pass up the opportunity to destroy the Democrat case. There will be a trial, with witnesses questioned.
Have a long trial so John Roberts has to sit there for six months for 10 hours every day.
Sounds like the RINOs who owe their soul to the George Soros Company Store are not going to suddenly garner any Profiles in Courage. But to Remove the GOP's Presidential candidate they will need 20 RINOs doing the dirty deed, not 3 or 4.
The dismissal on motion is the only way to go.Schedule it for the ides of March. Otherwise the Senate morphs into the investigative slander machinery for the Dems campaign, for free.
The problem with a long Senate trial is that after 3+ years of Democrat impeachment inquiries in the House the Democrat/Media cabal will push a "do nothing Republican Senate" narrative.
The Democrat response to a long (over two weeks) Senate impeachment trial will be "justice delayed is justice denied".
As pointed out, it only takes 3 GOP Never-Trumpers to side with the democrats to use secret ballot voting for removal.
The perils for Trump lie in the Senate, not the House. Not enough people are taking it seriously.
These guys all have skeletons. They made a mistake thinking that Trump had to have some, too.
The Schiff-Ed Buck one seems to be leaking out this week.
I have read that Horowitz is bringing out his report tomorrow.
I have read that Horowitz is bringing out his report tomorrow.
It will be framed as complete exoneration, 24 hour news cycle at most. Back to impeachment.
As a Trial Lawyer, you want a Dismissal by the Judge ASAP. Even if you have the strongest case ever presented all ready to go, leaving the case for the Jury to decide is stupid. You never know what the Jurors will do.
The only case I ever lost was one where a "friend" of mine was intentionally left on the jury, and it turned out that the friend talked the other Jurors into the verdict because they told them that they knew I was a crafty liar.That was a lesson for the ages. Jurors are always into rivalries and personal ego trips to impress the others on the Panel.
Rand Paul is wrong.
If the House limits witnesses, then the Senate can call witnesses they suppressed. Don't give Dems talking points that the Senate closed down the trial to protect Trump.
The longer this is a democrat-run impeachment, the worse for democrats.
The moment this shifts to the Senate the clock begins for this to hurt Republicans. The Senate is a trap for the Republican party. Even if they dismiss the charges, the Senate's actions will be twisted and perverted to hurt Republicans.
Give it to the democrats: This is a total shit-show but the end-game on this (getting it to the Senate) either has Republicans hurt in 2020 or Trump out ahead of a major election year. All they have to do is get it to the Senate.
I have read that Horowitz is bringing out his report tomorrow.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Corrupt Democrats are above the law. Media say so.
An immediate dismissal of this stupid partisan farce would be appropriate and just.
A very long, drawn out expose of the wickedness of the Deep State/Dem/Media alliance would also be appropriate and just.
So this is a no lose situation.
"Give it to the democrats: This is a total shit-show but the end-game on this (getting it to the Senate) either has Republicans hurt in 2020 or Trump out ahead of a major election year. All they have to do is get it to the Senate."
Surely you jest. A Senate trial won't be about Trump. It'll be a full-on airing of the Democrat's dirty laundry. Biden, Biden, Biden, Kerry, Biden, and maybe a little Romney as an object lesson. The Democrats would be crazy to let this little fund-raiser get of the House.
"Blogger Dave Begley said...
My prediction is that the Schiff show has gone so badly that Nancy won't even schedule a vote by the full House.
Epic failure.
Schiff is the scapegoat."
Unless they bring something waaaay better than what they had yesterday, I agree. I've wondered all along what Nancy's game was in trusting something this important to Schiff. She had to do something to keep the base from open revolt, but why not have somebody competent run the show? The only reason most of us know that fool's name is his recurring quotes that "I have ironclad evidence of Russian collusion", only to have that entire clusterfuck die a whimpering death. I wonder if this is her version of 'be careful what you wish for'.
’The perils for Trump lie in the Senate, not the House.’
That’s my fear, as well. I don’t trust any of the Republican senators to act in anyway outside their own interests. My hope is that enough of them realize keeping Trump in office is linked to their self preservation.
"Let's have a really long Senate trial to own the libs!"
Paralyzing Trump for weeks and months is a great re-election strategy!
I have read that Horowitz is bringing out his report tomorrow.
So many times have I seen this! Still, tomorrow is Friday, so that makes sense.
"Blogger Francisco D said...
My prediction is that there will be no Senate trial because it provides Trump the opportunity to defend himself and to highlight the shenanigans of the Deep Staters."
McConnell knows where the bodies are buried, and which of his colleagues are in up to their eyeballs. He also knows that failing to have some sort of trial would hand the Democrats campaign ammunition that he can't give them. If - IF - Nancy allows this to proceed to the Senate then McConnell will manage it as carefully as he can. I have more confidence in the statecraft of Cocaine Mitch than Nancy.
That will help the former governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick!
Scherer was part of the original journalist, costa was part of the concern caucus at national review.
"Surely you jest. A Senate trial won't be about Trump. It'll be a full-on airing of the Democrat's dirty laundry. Biden, Biden, Biden, Kerry, Biden, and maybe a little Romney as an object lesson. The Democrats would be crazy to let this little fund-raiser get of the House."
Let's consider that most folks are low information voters and receive their news from mass media including NYT, WAPO, NBC, ABC, CNN, CBS....
The problem with the senate, optically, is that it whitewashes the impeachment proceedings by putting it into republican control. The republicans will now be the final arbiter of whether the impeachment proceedings continue in the eyes of the public, or die. And if/when they die, it will be blamed on republicans not following thru on it rather than on the fact that there is no crime and no evidence.
Further the Senate has problems with RINOs/Never Trumpers that can cause serious issues in this process.
You think the 12 hours a day of Senate trial witnesses will make the news? No. It will be carefully cultivated 2-3 soundbites and quotes that are used to write entire articles. It won't be an airing of dirty laundry; it'll be a another disastrous episode in our nation.
This is why special counsels exist. Because you don't want the opposition party OR the party in power to be driving forward an investigation/trial.
"I have read that Horowitz is bringing out his report tomorrow.
So many times have I seen this! Still, tomorrow is Friday, so that makes sense."
Nothing says "The best day to drop a bomb!" then a friday afternoon report.
It's been months of "it'll be released friday"
The fact that it's always a friday would indicate to me it's just red meat for a small part of the population. Any major bombshell would be dropped Sunday-Tuesday.
"Paralyzing Trump for weeks and months is a great re-election strategy!"
Picking a fight with Trump is not going to paralyze him. He'll make better use of what comes out of it than anyone else, and probably everyone else combined.
I have read the comments and the comments on a couple of other blogs. I don't know what Nancy will do. I doubt she does, either.
If the next two days are as bad as yesterday, I can see her pulling the plug and leaving Schiff hanging.
It may hinge on a few other members of her caucus. "Is this all there is?"
The public would get an impression of the lunacy of the Democrats. Which is worse?
I dunno.
Phil said...
"Paralyzing Trump for weeks and months is a great re-election strategy!"
Picking a fight with Trump is not going to paralyze him. He'll make better use of what comes out of it than anyone else, and probably everyone else combined.
What is he going to be able to get done in the Oval Office? A president that could be gone in mere days?
How much longer does this country have to put up with having the President we elected handcuffed by investigations and trials for his entire term?
Q on statecraft of Cocaine Mitch:
can he push it off till after 2020 election so that Trump begins second term with IMPEACHMENT trial hanging over his next 4 years?
I can admire that!
Left Bank of the Charles: "That will help the former governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick!"
Hooray for Sub-prime mortgage lenders and Bain Capital!!!
Yep, I'm sure none of Deval Patrick's opponents will bring up those background items.
Follow on question: How many women did Patrick give cancer to as a Bain exec?
I am sure D's Senators candidates can go along with that also
Let Mitch pull a Schiff.
Here are the witnesses we plan to call. Want more? Come begging. Here are the rules for begging. I will decide what questions are out of bounds. Rule one, if you were not in the room,you will provide, in detail,where your hearsay came from. Then you will be dismissed as irrelevant and we will call the person you fingered. That chain will be followed to the end for each accusation.
Since the Ukraine mess is the apparently key thing you have, I feel the need to fully investigate why the President would want an investigation over corruption. So we will be starting that chain with Hunter Biden and other principals of the Ukraine oil mess.
Oh yeah,you guys also list obstruction of justice. So Schiff's efforts to NOT allow witnesses and testimony will also be explored.
I'll get back to y'all when some new rulesoccur tome.
ChuckGrassley
Verified account @ChuckGrassley
To all the leakers in DOJ tell me IF the Horowitz report will EVER come out. I don’t want a prediction on WHEN. I’ve had enough of those disappointments. Tell “IF”
3:53 AM - 13 Nov 2019
Tough choice. On the one hand, it is a total farce and should be dismissed ASAP. On the other hand, the Democrats need to be made to suffer for this, and the best way to do that is probably to drag it out.
Be nice if the GOP could spin in around and impeach Adam Schitt. He's a crook and a liar.
I see your point, Browndog, but I can't see a path to Trump being removed from office. He's not in any danger of being removed in 'mere days' - not that I can see. There isn't going to be any meaningful legislation out of the House for the rest of the term regardless. In that sense, he's already paralyzed. But as far as reelection strategy is concerned, I think this largely plays into his hands.
We'll put up with it until we don't. I'm afraid of what that is going to look like. One thing I don't think it will look like is his supporters throwing in the towel. I think he gets more votes as a result of all this bullshit. We'll know in a year.
Lindsey Graham laid it down yesterday, and the Democrats had better be listening- hearsay evidence won't be allowed in the Senate trial, and I guarantee you that John Roberts will lend support to this as the presiding officer. People in the D.C. bubble seem to think criminal court procedure means nothing here, but they are completely wrong. The barring of hearsay evidence in a trial is a bedrock principle that still has meaning.
"Blogger narayanan said...
Q on statecraft of Cocaine Mitch:
can he push it off till after 2020 election so that Trump begins second term with IMPEACHMENT trial hanging over his next 4 years?"
I don't think so. I believe that once this Congress is over, all the old business is scuttled and would have to be re-initiated by the next Congress. So if he says "I'm not bringing this to trial" the next House would have to vote out new articles of impeachment.
But there are conlaw profs around here - is that correct?
"Cocaine Mitch" is the best nickname ever.
It takes a boring, old, unathletic, bespectacled nebbish and makes him a bad-ass.
Now that Romney has shown himself the scumbag that he has always been, coming up with smears against Patrick should be as easy as quoting Democrats.
Romney is at something like 18% favorability right now, IIRC.
Horowitz is a partisan pussy. Hence, the delays. Any reliance on a damning report from him is misplaced.
Rand Paul’s is right! If there is an impeachment, which I doubt, McConnell can handle it in a way to screw the Democrats.
Start by imposing the Federal Rules of Evidence to preclude hearsay which ends Schiff’s case. Allow the defense to offer:
1. The phone call transcript (state of mind exception); 2. An affidavit from Zelensky that he was not extorted (state of mind exception); 3. The treaty (authority); 4. The Biden extortion video (confession or admission); 5. Testimony from the prosecutor that he was told to lay off Burisma and was fired because he didn’t (state of mind of declarant); 6. Hunter Biden’s financial records; 7. Testimony from an FBI agent that the Bureau relied on Crowdstrike rather than examining DNC servers regarding “Russian hack”.
I’m rusty on rules of evidence, but I think that’s all possible.
After the acquittal the Bidens and the whistleblower should be referred to DOJ for prosecution. Presumably, Durham is already looking at the Crowdstrike finding. If there is not an acquittal, the RNC should close up shop.
Of course Democrats set the timeline for this, so this is just one more “Republicans Pounce” story.
If you are going to take a shot at the king, it’s best not to use a damp squib as ammunition.
So Republicans can either humiliate the Dems with a curt dismissal of impeachment as the vacant political stunt that it is or torment the Dems with a lengthy, detailed exposure of the vacant, political nature of their abuse of Constitutional powers.
This is a good problem to have.
I meant at 10:41 that Paul was right about the “partisan sham”, not the dismissal.
If the House does vote out articles of impeachment, I think the Senate will hold a trial that could take at least a month, but it should not take more than that and will probably take a lot less. Unless the House finds, at a minimum, actual witnesses that were told directly by Trump to hold up the aid until the Ukrainians investigated the Bidens' role in Burisma, then the Democrats won't even have a case to present in the Senate.
I have read all the transcripts from all the testimony that have been released so far, and I have read all the leaks from the testimony that hasn't yet been released yet. I can tell you that there is only one piece of evidence about the so-called quid pro quo- just one- that would be allowed to be presented in a criminal trial, and that is the transcript of the phone call that Trump released before Pelosi jumped off the impeachment cliff. That is it so far, only the phone call transcript could be presented as evidence by the Democrats at this point, and the defense would, of course, be able to counter that directly with Zelensky's own issued statement that there was no quid pro quo, and with Taylor's own statements that the Ukrainians weren't aware for 6 weeks that the aid had even been put on hold.
I don't care whether or not the Republicans in the Senate hate Trump, they won't violate the hearsay rule to get him- they will use it to punish the Democrats for taking this path, and the Democrats and the media will howl at the Moon, but it won't be an effective tactic against the barring of hearsay testimony- the public that matters will be able to understand such a concept.
In the Senate I can guarantee that Sen Burr will do everything in his power to protect his boss, Sen Warner, to whom he has no doubt made a "business arrangement" for after Burr leaves office.
Burr is a real problem here in assisting the democrats in the impeachment effort.
If the House passes Articlles of Impeachment, the Senate should hire John Ratcliffe as a manager and call Hunter Biden as the first witness. This will rip Joe Biden up. Then, call Biden as 2nd witness. Then, call Schiff as the next. It will end quickly.
I agree with hombre and would add the Senate can complete his steps 1-4 in an afternoon...
Skookum John said...
Horowitz and Durham will almost certainly have weighed in by then. I'm guessing the consequences of their investigation will have a major impact on how the Senate handles an impeachment referral, and it will not be to the liking of the Democrats who foolishly threw the pebble that started an avalanche.
You know what? No.
Mueller sprinkled indictments and 3am raids all along the way. There's no reason why Horowitz or Durham or Barr have to hold all their fire until Der Tag.
If there is, then at best there is no reason to think they will time or aim their efforts to be helpful.
It may be a wise political calculation for Susan Collins to say those things but to actually believe the Senate has an obligation to produce a lengthy trial no matter how absurd the articles of impeachment, is also absurd.
I don't care whether or not the Republicans in the Senate hate Trump, they won't violate the hearsay rule to get him- they will use it to punish the Democrats for taking this path
An impeachment trial is a BIG opportunity for the Republicans. The question is whether they are either too stupid or deep-state dirty to pass on the opportunity to make Democrats look like corrupt fools.
If there is a trial (which I seriously doubt) and Republicans turn on Trump, it is the end of the Republican Party. Stick a fork in em.
call Hunter Biden as the first witness. This will rip Joe Biden up. Then, call Biden as 2nd witness. Then, call Schiff as the next.
Makes a strong case for why this won't make it to the Senate.
Democrat named Mike Quigley(D) from Corruption infested Illinois(D)
Hearsay is better!
Stalinist Lawyer hath spoken.
Does anyone buy the big lie that the the whistle-blower is receiving death threats?
The media is big into mind-reading these last few years. That plus anonymous leaks comprises the bulk of their business model.
Which is all you need to know, really, to dismiss them out of hand.
The problem with strategies of delay is that they leave more time for things to go wrong. You may turn out to have been too clever and shoot yourself in the foot. In this case, though there are so many factors, that I couldn't begin to say which strategy would be better.
The Democrats a similar problem. If the process doesn't go all the way to the end and Trump is actually reelected, will we have to go through all this again in 2021, probably with some other pretext - maybe another East European country? Do they go at impeachment full force now, or do they go for the long game?
P.S. I got a little science fiction thrill writing "2021." Will we be on Mars by then?
Remember when Bill Clinton granted China a 'most favored nation' status? Was there not a quid pro quo involved in Chinagate? If Trump had done even a fraction of what the Clintons have done he would be in prison.
In any other trial what kind of hoops are involved in calling Prosecutor or judge to the stand?
I see calls for : call Hunter Biden as the first witness. This will rip Joe Biden up. Then, call Biden as 2nd witness. Then, call Schiff as the next.
Also, at the Senate impeachment trial, the GOP should call Mueller as a witness. But to refresh his recollection, he should be allowed to refer to and rely upon a updated version of the Denny's Early Bird Dinner Menu so that he doesn't lose focus.
Skylark said... If you are going to take a shot at the king, it’s best not to use a damp squib as ammunition.
_________
shoot into open throat; stop heimlich intervention; mission successful
"If Trump had done even a fraction of what the Clintons have done he would be in prison.”
Like Yoda said: “There is no Democrat hypocrisy, only Republican whataboutism."
The people's memory is not so short nor fickle. The resolution of this multitrimester hunt and trial should be prompt and serve justice, so that they can return to their elected duties to serve their constituencies and make America great again.
If Republicans win back the majority of those Trump districts that Democrats lied to and told that they were not running on impeachment, Nancy is not speaker any longer and she will have wasted her last two years.
IT’s a very high risk strategy for her.
Bottom line is that if the Senate votes guilty the Republican party is dead. They wouldn't be able to get a municipal dog catcher elected. Trump's base is that large. I'd assume they're smart enough to know that. McConnell knows that.
I don't see how an extended trial hurts the Dem candidates unless they are on judiciary. They only need to be there for the vote.
Schumer's call for "fair" rules in the Senate almost made me bust a gut the other day.
I don't think the Repubs can let any trial run for long for fear of losing some of the base. I don't think they can dismiss immediately because of talking points for the Dems. I think this gets voted to the Senate because the onus falls on the Repubs then.
This whole shitshow is political manuvering. It's not about any higher purpose.
Anyway, I have come to agree with Farmer and buwaya, although not for all the same reasons, the Republic is as good as dead. Trump is just a candle in the wind.
$.02 from a know nothing.
Q: can Senate vote to allow "juicier" hearsay evidence ?
Latest D's 47 R's 53 :>>>>> if D's can peel off 4 cuckRs?
What if?
That's the game now right? Let's play.
... Durham drops an indictment on Brennen? That dirty ups the WB, and lots of those unnamed "persons close to the investigation".
... Burisma documents become public showing moneys going to State Dept operatives?
... Whistle Blower comes forward with evidence Schiff has met dozens of time with Ciaramella.
... RGB passes and leaves this mortal plain?
That last one would be interesting. What would McConnell do? Fiddle around with a fake impeachment show, at the expense of leaving the SCOTUS seat empty. Although, that takes the court math to 5 v 3
... RGB passes and leaves this mortal plain?
I can't believe she's not dead already. They're hoping to keep her 'alive' until after a successful impeachment, since they know she can't last until after the 2020 election even on life support.
"Lawfare Group" gaming to set this up has been mentioned in connection with House D's >>>> what do we know about such gaming with Senate D's?
Collins >> rest of GOP
Browndog
No, you cannot get a secret ballot with 51 votes. There is the one fifth clause: one fifth can demand a calling of the roll to be part of the record. Eugene Volokh posted on this earlier in the week.
Yeah Ken. Why don't you toddle on up to Maine or DC and yell at her? It worked so well regarding Kavanaugh.
Collins will vote based on the evidence. She'll vote to acquit if the current evidence is all that's on offer.
Phil
I gather you don’t understand what the “much greater than” sign is. Here it is: >>
Blogger chickelit said...
“Should every Senator running for POTUS sit out a Senate trial? It's such a clear conflict of interest.”
Well no. It’s business as usual for Democrats to use their office(s) for political gain!
OTOH, it is a High crime or misdemeanor” for Trump to act in the best interest of the country to ferret out corruption if there is even a remote chance that he could benefit politically. Besides, we all know that the senile old crook, Uncle Joe, will make a perfect Democrat President - committed to preserving the swamp.
Rationale for GOP Senators to remove Trump, and get back to "normal":
-Duty bound. The seriousness of the crimes and the compelling evidence left us no choice.
-Voter will not switch to vote democrat, the party that started all this, just because they're mad at us. They have no place to go.
-We've all cast votes that infuriated our constituents before. Had to work a little harder, but were re-elected nevertheless.
-Once Trump is gone, the country can heal and unite. It may expand the party by picking up grateful democrats.
-Hate Trump. Don't care if I don't get re-elected. I'm set with future lobbying positions, and if I get one chance to take this SOB out I'm taking it.
“Lindsey Graham laid it down yesterday, and the Democrats had better be listening- hearsay evidence won't be allowed in the Senate trial, and I guarantee you that John Roberts will lend support to this as the presiding officer. People in the D.C. bubble seem to think criminal court procedure means nothing here, but they are completely wrong. The barring of hearsay evidence in a trial is a bedrock principle that still has meaning.”
I think that he also stated that no testimony would be allowed fro anonymous witnesses, which presumably means the claimed “whistleblower”. Except that his testimony is also presumably excluded as hearsay. Still, we can all hope to get him under cross examination where he ca e quizzed about his relations to Schifty’s staff, Brennan, and maybe even Biden.
Still, without a lot of hearsay being admitted, the Dems essentially have no case.
You wondered what taylor had been doing between postings
https://mobile.twitter.com/Larry_Beech/status/1194818995981029376
“ Duty bound. The seriousness of the crimes and the compelling evidence left us no choice”
Except that there were no crimes on Trump’s part. On the part of Schifty and the “whistleblower”, sure. But Trump was merely exercising his plenary power to engage in foreig relations. Pure Article II, with no room for House oversight or meddling. The Dems are the ones violating the Constitution here, trying to intrude into an area of exclusive Executive power.
It looks like wishful thinking by the Post combined with an effort to nudge the legislature towards impeachment and trial by taking it as a given.
A longer trial during an election year will give the media a higher platform which they will use to continue their attacks on the President. The danger to Trump is that people who would otherwise vote for him but who aren't solid supporters will just get sick of the whole mess and make the problem go away by staying home on election day.
If the leaders in the Senate actually see stretching out a trial as a good strategy then, well, they're fools.
And remember, we're in a bubble here. Most of the voters aren't on the internet following closely. The buzz the media creates affects the loosely attached more than it does the politically involved.
End it as quickly as possible.
Blogger Ken B said...
Browndog
No, you cannot get a secret ballot with 51 votes. There is the one fifth clause: one fifth can demand a calling of the roll to be part of the record. Eugene Volokh posted on this earlier in the week.
And, he's wrong.
Like the House, the Senate has plenary power to set their own rules for Impeachment.
A motion to dismiss is a tactical error in my opinion. Voters want the process carried out so they can decide for themselves. Makes it look like the republicans have something to hide ... which they do.
-Voter will not switch to vote democrat, the party that started all this, just because they're mad at us. They have no place to go.
So they stay home,or vote third party. It only takes a few in key states...
See Jill Stein.
Browndog, they're not going to remove a President with a secret ballot.
browndog wrote:
"-Voter will not switch to vote democrat, the party that started all this, just because they're mad at us. They have no place to go."
They also don't have to vote in the general election, or they can vote in the primaries.
Sure, the Republican Party is known as the Stupid Party for a reason, but I don't think even they are this dumb.
There will be no secret ballots- it wouldn't work anyway since every acquittal voter will just publicize their own vote. People are smart enough to make inferences, and, in any case, the actual vote would be leaked by multiple someones. Far better to just take the vote in full view of the public.
Browndog
No, surprisingly enough the famous constitutional lawyer knows more about it than you do. Read his article, which directly refutes the point you made.
James Madison and friends did careful work.
In practical terms as well a secret ballot is impossible. The no voters tell people how they voted.
GOP Senators who vote for impeachment would be committing political suicide and they know it. The rationales set forth by Browndog are no substitute for pragmatic political savvy.
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.”...
If Democrats impeach the President for the high crime of He's ugly and his mother dresses him funny. Susan Collins believes anything short of a long, drawn out trial is an unfair treatment of articles of impeachment.
She's not going to get much more than that to go on...
If the dems oppose some procedure they can and will object and Roberts would either decide or defer to the majority. In either case it would be his decision to make.
Next Browndog will imagine that all the GOP Senators will resign and the governors,either Democrats or Never Trumpers, will appoint Clinton apparatchiks...
Insert eye roll emoji for all the over the top speculation and fear mongering
Don't be too hard on browndog- a Devil's Advocate is a good thing.
Makes it look like the republicans have something to hide ... which they do.
Steve still hasn't learned of the 1998 treaty with Ukraine that requires cooperation in investigations.
Negotiated by Bill Clinton, probably about the time he advised Ukraine to give up its nukes with a promise US would defend them.
steve uhr: "A motion to dismiss is a tactical error in my opinion. Voters want the process carried out so they can decide for themselves. Makes it look like the republicans have something to hide ... which they do."
LOLOLOLOL
You don't know what Christopher Steele....er.....what Nellie Ohr....er .......what Michael Cohen kn... er .....Robert Mueller kn......er.... . .....what Christine Blasey Ford..er.. .....what Michael Avenetti. .....er.....what the Super Secret Non-Whistle-blower (Eric Ciaramella) KNOWS!!!!!
And this time, THIS TIME(!!) we've got Trump for sure!
No doubt about it!
At some point you really have to wonder if the Steve Uhr's of the world are just playing the standard partisan game or is he really just that dumb and easy for his democrat masters to play him like a fiddle.
I'm not sure which is better.
Rabel said...
Browndog, they're not going to remove a President with a secret ballot.
I didn't say they are. I'm making the point it's entirely possible.
Browndog
No, surprisingly enough the famous constitutional lawyer knows more about it than you do. Read his article, which directly refutes the point you made.
I read it. I've also read two subsequent articles that rebut it. Yes, the Senate can adopt regular order and existing Senate rules, but are not Constitutionally bound.
I've seen enough to know there are no "rules" anymore.
I couldn't give a fuck less how much you roll your eyes at my opinions.
I'm just going to take this opportunity to confess my unpopular and contrarian opinion that Mitch McConnell is a brilliant tactician and strategist and the GOP is lucky to have him in charge in the Senate. If he says ithey'll have a trial, rest assured he has gamed this week out and at the end of the day the Democrats will get it good and hard
There will be a trial, and a recorded vote.
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.
Remember, Steve Uhr is literally making the case that Trump has something to hide in the very circumstance where Trump literally released the record of the phone call AND will be releasing the record of a second phone call (which occurred prior to the previously released call) tomorrow.
LOLOLOLOL
And what makes this latest dem flailing moronic failure even more satisfying, is that it is clear that Brennan taking an active measure to move the "fired from the White House for leaking" Ciaramella back INTO the White House under CIA direction shows that this latest and most pathetic hoax impeachment effort yet (and that's sayin' something!!) has been over a year in the making.
And this is the best they could come up with.
This.
LOL
Trump is now, obviously, without question, irrefutably, the single most vetted and "clean" businessman ever to exist on the face of God's Green Earth.
The dems can't even effectively manufacture false evidence against him and have it stick!!
We have reached a place that sometimes, whether or not you believe the nation is ultimately doomed or not, just makes you shake you head in wonderment that Trump arrived at just this moment to confront just these domestic political enemies.
"GOP Senators who vote for impeachment would be committing political suicide and they know it."
or
GOP Senators who vote for impeachment in a secret ballot would be committing suicide.
I understand that they have little insight into the mind of a common man with a deer rifle and a scope but I do hope they give serious consideration to the reaction such an action would provoke.
I don't own a deer rifle, but millions of patriots do. A secret ballot would be lunacy.
Rocketeer
Yup. And, speaking of unpopular opinions, those giving Trump credit for all the circuit judges being confirmed are wrong. It is Mitch who deserves the credit.
Ken B: "Rocketeer
Yup. And, speaking of unpopular opinions, those giving Trump credit for all the circuit judges being confirmed are wrong. It is Mitch who deserves the credit."
And those giving Trump credit for Trade Deal renegotiation are wrong. It is the Negotiation team that deserves the credit.
And those giving Trump credit for De-regulation are wrong. It is the Congress and executive departments deserve the credit.
And those giving Trump credit for improving the status of our military are wrong. It is the Pentagon that deserves the credit.
And those giving Trump credit for improved employment numbers and increasing wages and lowering taxes are wrong. It is literally everyone but Trump that deserves the credit.
etc.
That Trump.
All this good stuff was just sitting around and bound to get done when he showed up.
Let's hope Trump doesn't get in the way and stops all this good stuff that was going to happen anyway no matter what in the same way that gravity is just here and keeping us firmly planted on the Earth.
The Democrats entire case basically rests upon the notion that there’s no legitimate justification for “pressuring” the Ukrainians to investigate Joe & Hunter Biden and Burisma. But that premise really doesn’t stand up to much scrutinty.
It’s not really a contested assertion to say that the government of Ukraine is one of the most corrupt there is. Nor is it particularly contested to say that the Burisma is very corrupt. It’s also pretty safe to say that the corruption in Ukraine in general is to the benefit of Vladimir Putin since obviously it makes it easier for him to sow chaos and therefore justify further incursions. And cleaning up corruption, reducing all the grift and graft in the Ukraine is very much in the US interest. I don’t think you’ll find any reasonably informed people who would disagree with any of this.
So then you have a Vice President’s son recieving large sums of money from an unjustifiable sinecure in this very corrupt company in this very corrupt county. In what sane world does that not merrit investigation? In what way would investigating it be bad for the United States?
There was actually a law passed hr 2478, concerning ukrainian corruption in 1994.
"Don't be too hard on browndog- a Devil's Advocate is a good thing."
I used to believe that. I've since come to the conclusion that the Devil already has WAY more advocates than necessary.
That said, I can't disagree with the observation that the rules have become whatever the hell the Swamp want them to be. They don't even have to have a distant resemblance to justice, common sense or fairness. They just don't. The House impeachment is ironclad proof. It's Calvinball, all the way down.
A few random thoughts:
1. Senators recusing themselves due to conflicts or bias. Won’t happen. Chuck Shumer voter against impeachment and then voted to acquit in the Senate trial (he was elected to the Senate in 1998).
2. If there is real danger of damage to the Democrats due to the IG or Durham would President Costanza agree to a deal where impeachment on all past acts is dropped permanently in exchange for the DOJ dropping its various Deep State related investigations?
3. If it goes to trial will any Blue State Republicans (Collins & Gardner, for example)? There are two votes that could be given up and still have a majority vote to acquit. I know it takes 2/3 but it would be a black eye to not get a majority to acquit.
4. Could Cocaine Mitch excuse Pregnahontis from attending an extended trial? I would think you do not want her off the campaign trail.
See Drago, I knew you didn’t understand. Mitch can only do his magic because the Dems changed the rules. And he does it without help or intervention from Trump. Those others you mentioned work for Trump, and take orders from Trump. Mitch does not, he is in a separate branch of government. They not teach civics in your state?
"Yup. And, speaking of unpopular opinions, those giving Trump credit for all the circuit judges being confirmed are wrong. It is Mitch who deserves the credit. "
Nonsense. What if Jeb had won, and he nominated a ton of milquetoast, Robert Kennedys and John Roberts who only act conservative when it doesn't cost the Left anything? And suppose McConnell had gotten all *those* guys passed at the same rate that he has for Trump's nominees? Would McConnell deserve credit or blame for getting them through?
McConnell got the guys through, and he does get credit for doing his job, but it's to Trump's *sole* credit that the guys McConnell got through were *worth* getting through.
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?
Yes reid tupolovd himself
https://mobile.twitter.com/YossiGestetner
Browndog,
You are flogging a horse that isn't going anywhere.
It's good that you provided something to think about. Thanks.
I've thought about it. Now I am done with it.
All we have heard from Trump is that his July 25 call to the comedian now serving as Ukraine's president is that his call was "perfect" and all we hear from Trump and his defenders is that the "deep state" bureaucracy is out to get our "perfect president" - always has been , since day one.
Apparently, according to Trumpsters of all ilk, Trump has spent his presidential time fighting corruption an striving for the rule of law while living up to his presidential oath of office to defend the Constitution. So how is it that he has been caught manipulating his charity and for bribing a stripper and a Playmate in order to win the election. Further he was allowed to payoff cheated students of his fake Trump University in order to be permitted to serve as president.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, his campaign met with Russians 31 times to assure that the Rooskies were interfering in our election. Those good times resulted in five, possibly six, advisers being convicted in court. Lots of foreign money flowed to Grumpy Trump and his family and Trump was named an unindicted co-conspirator.
As for Trump's anti-corruption bent, it is obviously limited only to the Ukraine, where Russian troops occupy much of that country, but the killing and chopping up of a Wapo journalist by the Saudi Crown Prince and the slaughter of Syrian Kurds is OK in the small mind of the president.
Get a life folks! Who is lying - Trump or yesterday's impeachment hearing witnesses, Ambassador Bill Taylor and George Kent? If Trump is not hiding evidence, why is the full version of the infamous phone call locked up by the White House? If there are White House staffers who can verify Trump's story, why have we not heard from them? Instead Trump is deliberately blocking their testimony.
Can anyone say with a straight face that trump asked Ukraine to investigate his chief political rival not because he was his chief political rival but because trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine? Doesn’t pass the smell test.
Michael K. Nothing wrong in asking other countries to assist with an investigation. As I have said here before, that happens every day of the week. Was there an ongoing investigation of Biden/Burisma by DOJ at the time of the call? Not that I’ve heard.
So you see how taylor has fingerprints on everything from afghanistan to policy in north africa, always look for the detailthey arent emphasizing.
So far, the best quote to come out of the coup attempt is from Rep. Mike Quigley, quoted in Instapundit as saying: "Hearsay is often better than solid evidence."
I'm not making that up.
"Makes it look like the republicans have something to hide ... which they do.”
steve uhr knows this because the accusation is the proof in his world. We can’t let an accused person walk!
Taylor was on the payroll of Burisma, through it’s "think tank” The Atlantic Council.
And who was lobbying vindman. Anders anslund of the atlantic council, among others
Democrats are the ones acting as if they have something to hide. Refusing to hold a genuine vote on impeachment to try and protect the 40 Trump district Democrats, ruling every line of questioning that could lead to a different understanding of the hearsay witness’s testimony off limits.
Vote for a real impeachment. Nancy had her chance and she balked. Let’s get it all out there. All of the witnesses and all of the issues, including the fact that the whistlyblower met with the Ukrainian who leaked the dirt on Manafort. and was at the meeting where the Ukrainians were told that Shokin had to be fired by Biden’s office.
So does taylor have motive for his narrative, yes indeed, does he have opportunity, well at least twice does he have means?
What I'd like to hear from our resident lefties and NeverTrumpers is - are there ANY possible circumstances in which you guys will agree that a Democrat needs investigating?
Would video of the people admitting the that Democrats committed a crime suffice? Because from Planned Parenthood selling body parts to ABC covering for Epstein to Biden bragging about getting the Ukranian prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold aid, the answer appears to be, NO, video evidence of admission of guilt doesn't even begin to justify actually investigating any Democrat, anywhere.
I was going to ask more questions about "would this be enough", but you know what, if the above doesn't - I mean NEVER - qualifies as sufficient grounds to investigate a Democrat, then nothing ever could. The rest is pointless.
And there really can only be one response to that. Fuck you. War.
When the shoes on the other foot say iran contra they will go to the ends of the earth, interestingly some of the deep state players like laufman go back that far.
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.
I've always attributed coy smiles, funny looks, knowing looks, etc. to indigestion and gas, never to thoughtful design. Heck, Schiff's buggy-eyed look is probably all due to gas. It humanizes politicians and the rest of my betters for me.
I got your point Ken. You didn't get mine.
This was after shokins ouster:
https://www.euractiv.com/section/europe-s-east/news/court-of-auditors-unable-to-say-how-eu-money-was-spent-in-ukraine/
"And, he's wrong.
Like the House, the Senate has plenary power to set their own rules for Impeachment."
Nope. The one fifth rule is in the Constitution. It can't be overridden by a rules change. "Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal."
Voters want the process carried out so they can decide for themselves.
You mean like an election?
“I'm guessing the consequences of their investigation will have a major impact on how the Senate handles an impeachment referral, and it will not be to the liking of the Democrats who foolishly threw the pebble that started an avalanche.”
You have to throw the stone to get the pool to ripple...
The Dems better steel themselves for a little slap and tickle. It’ll be the fucking they get for the three years of fucking around they got.
Blogger steve uhr said...
Can anyone say with a straight face that trump asked Ukraine to investigate his chief political rival not because he was his chief political rival but because trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine? Doesn’t pass the smell test.
Just because such an investigation benefits Trump, or even if it was Trump's primary (or even only) motivation, doesn't make it bad for the United States, or against the interest of the United States, or wrong, or a crime, or (most importantly) impeachable.
The Democrats entire case basically rests upon the notion that there’s no legitimate justification for “pressuring” the Ukrainians to investigate Joe & Hunter Biden and Burisma.
No, that there can never be, because after all, it's selective prosecution. So the issue of whether there or was not good grounds or if Trump sincerely, even if mistakenly, believed there might be something there, is ruled irrelevant.
Nobody ever asked Ukraine to "dig up dirt" or conduct a witch hunt, or even a fishing expedition, or do any kind of criminal investigation, but only to find out what the facts were in regards to some specific allegations.
Not even Giuliani was looking for dirt - about Biden - dirt came to him, (naturally once he heard he was interested in following it up)
He was getting told stories by Russian connected corrupt people in the hopes he could get the United States to remove the people in Ukraine fighting corruption from their positions.
I advise everybody go back and read gadfly's post @ 11/14/19, 1:15 PM.
Read it again, if you must.
This will save you the trouble of reading anything by him ever again.
Jim at: "This will save you the trouble of reading anything by him ever again."
Indeed.
Gadfly,our Poor Man's LLR C****, spent years piggy-backing onto our resident LLR's insane mutterings in the hopes of drawing readers to his (gadfly's) infant blogsite.
Needless to say that little gambit failed and with the subsequent dis-invitation to that particular LLR our little gadfly has had to fend for xis-self and, obviously, gadfly's "value" lies only in regurgitating the fevered blathering from the far left crazy sites.
He/she/xe is still on about that Russia Collusion hoax!!
LOLOL
At this point what is left to be said of these gadfly/uhr/freder et al characters?
Of course they are taking direction from the Mother Ship: Nancy Pelosi took time out from her botox treatments to say it is up to Trump to prove himself innocent!! Mueller/Weinstein/Lawfare 3.0!
stever uhr, can you say with a straight face that the black ledger leak out of Ukraine didn’t come form within the corrupt Ukraine govt?
I bet you can because logic and the constraints of causality mean very little to you.
steve uhr said...
Can anyone say with a straight face that trump asked Ukraine to investigate his chief political rival not because he was his chief political rival but because trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine? Doesn’t pass the smell test.
I'm not an idiot. Therefore, I don't care why a politician does the right thing. I just want him or her to do the right thing.
The $50,000+ a month that Burisma paid to Hunter Biden was clearly a corrupt payment, because there's nothing non-corrupt that HB could have done for Burisma that was worth those payments.
Biden publicly bragged that he used the threat of withholding $1 billion in US loan guarantees to get Ukraine's President to firm the prosecutor investigating Burisma.
We therefore have both corrupt payments, and corrupt acts.
I want them investigated, and I want the people involved punished to the maximum extent the law allows
by investigating this, is Trump "doing well by doing good"? I don't know, and I don't care.
If you DO care. If you do think it's more important to hurt Trump, than it is to punish corrupt US officials, then YOU are corrupt. And scum.
Any other questions I can help you with?
So far, the direct evidence supports that there was a request to persist investigations into corruption. Probably part of due diligence that would be reasonably and rationally expected before transfer of aid, especially lethal weapons and systems. Ironically, it was the Democrats and journolists that equated corruption with Burisma and Biden, and the investigation and whistleblowers back their forward-looking assertion.
Qwinn:
Biden bragging about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold aid,
He did that, in a speech in connection with a magazine article that he gave to the Council on Foreign Relations on Tuesday, January 23, 2018..
BUT
1) He did NOT brag about stopping an investigation, like Trump told Zelensky on July 25..
2) There was no investigation of Burisma to stop that still going on in late 2015 through early 2016.
3) All good international government types wanted that Prosecutor General gone.
4) Biden could only have been carrying out President Obama's policy.
And finally..
5) Biden probably made the whole story up!
I mean I think this anecdote about a cancelled announcement of $1.5 billion in loan guarantees scheduled tp be made at a press conference in Kiev where Biden would be present...
Never happened
Had anyone asked George Kent the right questions I think that suspicion might have been confirmed.
Biden took six trips altogether to Kiev, not 12 or 13. The aid was already made conditional in November. Biden's 5th trip was in December and that was the last one previous to the prosecutor leaving his job. The prosecutor left office in March, 2016. The loan guarantees were issued in early June, 2016 the day after the Ukrainian Parliament passed a package of U.S. endorsed anti-corruption legislation.
Greg..
The $50,000+ a month that Burisma paid to Hunter Biden
That;s not correct either. He got more money, in a variety of ways.
1) He did NOT brag about stopping an investigation, like Trump told Zelensky on July 25..
Gathering Brownie points for Patterico, I see.
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.
Steve is speaking from all those vexatious litigant cases he filed. So the two bureaucrats were "co-conspirators?" No wonder you lost all those cases.
"Biden probably made the whole story up! “
This part is probably true. Biden and the whistleblower bottom lined the Ukraine in a meeting in the White House.
Also, this part is pretty funny:
40/ in Nov 10, 2019 NYT http://archive.is/YeBQh, Thrush and Vogel assert that "Biden was just one of many officials calling for Shokin to go". He cited IMF managing director Christine Lagarde, Nuland and Senate Republicans. However, his key citations either AFTER Jan 19 or vague. Stephan McIntyre.
Basically Finkleman is on here to spread disinformation. Burisma was under investigation when Shokin was fired, Burisma used Hunter Biden’s name with the State Department. We can go on like this forever. But since Finkleman is the one bringing all of these brand new and seemingly fantastical facts here, maybe he shoudl provide some links.
Co conspirators in a “crime” that we only have hearsay evidence even happened. LOL.
Phil
That’s funny because I praised Collins and you likened me to her shouting critics.
You are right about agreeing with me on th one fifth clause though :)
Sammy Finkelman said...
Qwinn:
Biden bragging about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold aid,
He did that, in a speech in connection with a magazine article that he gave to the Council on Foreign Relations on Tuesday, January 23, 2018..
BUT
1) He did NOT brag about stopping an investigation, like Trump told Zelensky on July 25.
Correct. He didn't tell the audience "hey, I got this prosecutor fired because he was investigating the corrupt company that was paying off my son!"
So what? That is what he did
2) There was no investigation of Burisma to stop that still going on in late 2015 through early 2016.
Yes, there was.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/new-docs-contradict-biden-claim-fired-ukrainian-prosecutor-was-corrupt
https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/11/05/uh-oh-hunter-bidens-name-pops-2016-state-dept-e-mails-discussing-end-burisma-corruption-probe/
3) All good international government types wanted that Prosecutor General gone.
No they didn't. It was a push by Biden: https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/16/top-diplomat-testified-that-obama-admin-not-international-community-orchestrated-ukraine-prosecutors-firing/
4) Biden could only have been carrying out President Obama's policy
The second that Hunter Biden went on Burisma's payroll, it become utterly corrupt for VP Biden to have any role for the US in Ukraine. It was corrupt of Obama to let Biden stay in charge. But it was at least as corrupt for Biden to keep the power.
Anybody not following Steve McIntyre on Twitter who is interested in a careful analysis of the evidence should be.
McIntyre sorts carefully through the evidence.
We have hearsay evidence that there was a crime, and hard evidence that there wasn’t.... What to believe... what to believe....
The Ukrainian thing has gotten so boring, that i'm skipping comments on it. The only interesting thing is who did Lt. Col Vinemann talk to, and when is Eric Ciaaremella going to testify.,
Otherwise, its just a rerun of the Mueller investigation. Lots of details, and OMG - we got Trump now! and almost none of it important or even new. The big bombshell of yesterday? A 2nd Staffer says he overhead Sondland Trump july 26th phone call. Wow! You mean instead of Taylor reporting 2nd gossip based on 1 person, its now based on 2 people. It reminds me of Monica fields. First one person, then another person and then a THIRD reporter, all claimed they saw Corey Lewandowski tear off Monica arm, and hurl her to the ground in a fit of rage. And then we saw the tape....and he didn't even touch Monica. He just walked by her, really fast. But three people lying was so much more persuasive than 2 liars.
File under “Oh, Schiff! We need to do Something!”
Via Lucianne:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that agreement on a new North American trade deal is “imminent” and she would like to pass it by year’s end. Pelosi’s comments at a news conference represented her most optimistic assessment to date on negotiations to replace the 25-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement with a new deal that would improve environmental and labor standards. House Democrats have been negotiating for months with the Trump administration to reach agreement, but it’s proven elusive so far. “It all comes down to enforcement,” Pelosi said....
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! We can post in real time today!
The walls in closing in on TRump. He's Finished. We got him now. Just now [insert latest "Bombshell"] its been proven that [insert latest thing Trump supposedly did wrong]. The Senate will have to remove him.
Feel free to use the template.
I hereby nominate Gladys Knight and the Pips as the official Impeachment Singers. "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" fits like a glove. Drag these bitches through a humiliating mud bath, they've earned it.
Chicken Nuggets for ALL!
Via Lucianne:
Washington - China is lifting a five-year ban on U.S. poultry, a goodwill gesture at a time when the world’s two biggest economies are trying to finalize a tentative trade deal. China had blocked U.S. poultry imports a month after an outbreak of avian influenza in December 2014, closing off a market that bought more than $500 million worth of American chicken, turkey and other poultry products in 2013. (Snip) The decision out of Beijing is effective immediately and the announcement sent shares of major U.S. chicken processers, Sanderson Farms, Tyson Foods and Pilgrim’s Pride to new highs for the year Thursday....
Loving Angel Has Fallen. Conspiracy to assassinate President Trumble and frame it like it’s the Russians. Scores 93 from the fans and 39 from the critics. Ha ha ha ha ha!
BTW, McConnell and the Senate R's could stop this in its tracks by simply saying they will vote it down the second the House impeachment articles arrive. IOw, they are Dead on Arrival.
Instead Mitch is talking about a long trial. Why is that? Curious how a Republican Senate is so Unsupportive of a President with a 90% R Approval rating.
Who exactly the hell was "fighting corruption" in Ukraine? Names... name the names.
yes that's the thread I've referred in the past, which I included re the vogel thead,
Instead Mitch is talking about a long trial.
No he's not. He's talking about a trial. Never said anything about "long".
Seriously, I know it's not fashionable to say so, but I trust him.
“Gathering Brownie points for Patterico, I see.”
That crazed sonuva bitch can use all he can get.
Just now [insert latest "Bombshell"] its been proven that [insert latest thing Trump supposedly did wrong]. The Senate will have to remove him.
We saw "Midway" last night. It was OK as a movie with a bit too much enthusiasm by the CGI folks.
They showed, as usual, about 20 minutes of previews. One was the new antiFox News movie "Bombshell." It recapitulates the accusations of Gretchen whatshername against Roger Ailes, who is now dead and can't sue.
I expect the usual suspects will pay to see it and it will quickly disappear. Too bad ABC doesn't make a movie about Epstein. And the coverup.
We are planning to see the new Eastwood flick, "Jewell" which is about the FBI frame job on the Atlanta security guard.
Instead Mitch is talking about a long trial. Why is that? Curious how a Republican Senate is so Unsupportive of a President with a 90% R Approval rating.
Senators have their dignity donchaknow. That was why Sessions got so spooked when the left went after him like duck on a June bug.
Undignified so he had to recuse himself, of course.
They need the chance to pontificate.
same for Ashcroft, and john tower, meanwhile chernenko ted is regarded as a statesman,
yes amber wallis, who should have stayed with peaky blinders, was in gabe Sherman's resistance fan fiction, as part of the house that redstone built, which disappeared without a trace,
Browndog said...
Blogger Ken B said...
Browndog
No, you cannot get a secret ballot with 51 votes. There is the one fifth clause: one fifth can demand a calling of the roll to be part of the record. Eugene Volokh posted on this earlier in the week.
And, he's wrong.
Like the House, the Senate has plenary power to set their own rules for Impeachment.
11/14/19, 12:03 PM
Browndog maybe you should read the U.S. Constitution once in a while.
Article 1, Section 5 Clause 3.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Why is this happening? Watch the Clintons. Bill is re-inserting.
I know the headline is two months old, intriguing the date,
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-police-raid-privat-bank-headquarters/30159430.html
“Blogger Browndog said...
As pointed out, it only takes 3 GOP Never-Trumpers to side with the democrats to use secret ballot voting for removal.”
I believe it takes 4/5 of the Senate to agree to a secret ballot.
A secret Ballot is the Stalinist sweet spot.
rcocean said...
BTW, McConnell and the Senate R's could stop this in its tracks by simply saying they will vote it down the second the House impeachment articles arrive. IOw, they are Dead on Arrival.
Instead Mitch is talking about a long trial. Why is that? Curious how a Republican Senate is so Unsupportive of a President with a 90% R Approval rating.
Why in the world would they want to stop them?
1: The Senators, BTW, are members of the Jury, so they have to sit there and shut up. All those Democrat Senators, running for President, will be stuck in DC, doing nothing. During key campaign time . Talk about fun for the GOP
2: The charges are utter crap. The longer they get to question all the Democrats "witnesses", the longer they get to put this pathetic crap in front of the American voters, the better off the GOP is.
3: This "impeachment" has been the scene of one crime after another. All the crimes coming from the people pushing it. Bring the WB forward. Make him testify under oath. How did you find out about this? Who did you talk to? Who did you talk to before you filed your complaint?
Call the IC IG. When did you change the "whistleblowing" rules? Why? Did you have conversations with anyone about the changes?
Call Schiff. Who did you talk to? When? Schiff has been lying all over the place. Getting him under oath will be a LOT of fun.
Get Vindeman under oath. Who did you talk to? Who did you leak this classified information to? he wants to take the fifth, on National TV? Excellent! "So, Lt. Col, because you personally disagreed with the way the US President was running his foreign policy, you violated the law and leaked classified information in any attempt to obstruct the President's foreign policy, and replace it with your own?" "No, I was replacing it with the proper foreign policy as determined by the Intereagency." "So, Col, you believe that the proper determiners of US foreign policy are faceless government bureaucrats, not the elected President of the US?"
By the time they're done, not one GOP Senator will vote for impeachment. Joe Manchin will definitely vote against. Jon Tester might vote against. Doug Jones will accept that he's going to lose in 2020, & vote for. But Sienma might very well vote against.
And Trump will cruise to an easy re-election, because the public will look at this, say "after 4 years of screaming, the best they could come up with against Trump was this total nothing-burger? I guess he's not that bad."
Because that's what happens when you strike at the King, and miss.
Please, keep on pushing this sh!t show
Michael K mentions an Epstein movie. I bet there is a Netflix one in the works — where he leaves a suicide note, and the CCTV cameras show him drugging his guards so he can string himself up. But the Republican warden hides all the evidence. “Based on a true story”.
But Sienma might very well vote against.
Although impeachment will never go to the Senate (IMO) Sinema would not vote to impeach. That guarantees her a lifetime seat as a moderate in Arizona. She can then vote for the leftist agenda knowing that she is a made woman. I don't think she is terribly bright, but she is definitely street smart.
More than a few Democrat senators, knowing that impeachment is total crap, will follow her lead. These people have to pretend to be more moderate than politicians in congressional districts. It will not hurt Democrat senators in purple states to vote against impeachment.
Sure, the Senate Republicans might be able to dismiss the impeachment without an actual trial, using the equivalent of summary judgment, or even the equivalent of dismissal for failure to state a valid claim. But why should they? They can keep most of Schifty’s witnesses from actually testifying much against Trump by enforcing hearsay rules (and, no, the co-conspirator exception isn’t going to help the Dems - those witnesses are adverse to Trump, and not his co-conspirators). On the other hand, they can force the “whistleblower” to testify, under penalty of perjury, and ask him about coordination with Schifty’s staff. As well as his connection to Brennan, and the other SpyGate miscreants. Can ask some of the other “witnesses” similar questions. Their answers to those questions would not be hearsay, so imminently admissible. And the cherry on top would be cutting into the campaigning of Warren, Sanders, etc. This would give an advantage to the candidates who aren't currently Senators. That won’t sit well at all with the candidates who are Senators. Not at all well. My view is that the upside of conducting a serious trial probably outweighs that of dismissing the impeachment up front.
Now the story is changing from Ukraine didn’t interfere in 2016 to Trump shouldn’t have hired a crook. That’s true, and the Democrats shouldn’t have stolen the nomination from Bernie. Somehow that argument never seemed to carry any weight when the shoe was on the other foot.
"Bill is re-inserting.”
Thanks for that image...
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?
in other news,
https://www.dailywire.com/news/ocasio-cortez-makes-stunning-admission-about-impeachment-during-cnn-interview/
whatever strategy works to inflict the most pain on corrupt liar Adam Schitt and Nancy Pelousy - do it.
he had the right credentials, even the right mentor, bassam frangieh, that's all they need. actual achievements well what does that matter,
Browndog maybe you should read the U.S. Constitution once in a while.
Clever.
Does the Senate hold trials to pass appropriations, rename a post office? Or, is Impeachment an entirely separate thing from legislation, and it's own rules?
Nixon v. United States (1993)- Senate's power to try impeachments included the nonreviewable final discretion to determine how to conduct its trials.
Again, I'm just floating the possibility. One seemingly no one seems to accept as even possible.
“Michael K mentions an Epstein movie. I bet there is a Netflix one in the works — where he leaves a suicide note, and the CCTV cameras show him drugging his guards so he can string himself up. But the Republican warden hides all the evidence.”
Netflix, Schmetflix... it’ll run on Disney’s new streaming service... a cautionary tale about young girls getting mixed up with Republican Wall St. one percenter Christian moneymen.
I used to believe that. I've since come to the conclusion that the Devil already has WAY more advocates than necessary.
LOL! Very good, Qwinn. Indeed he does.
it could be the next jack reacher vehicle, like the one with a hit squad, run by a retired?? general, who was smuggling heroin, in hollowed out missiles from Afghanistan, you can tell lee child is a fmr writer for panorama, when the bbc isn't left enough for you,
Seeing as no one has treated the witnesses as co-conspirators (in fact, they are generally heralded as actively working AGAINST Trump), that's an odd exception to hang your hat. But, does it actually count? They're not saying, "Trump told me it was a quid-pro-quo," which is what the exception is for. In fact, often they've said there was no linkage or no clear linkage, but let's assume they DID say Trump said what the whistleblower claimed he said.
... That STILL doesn't meet the exception! Because they're not saying "Trump told me," they're saying, "A second party told me."
So, I find this a tenuous attempt to use the exception as the witnesses were not presented as co-conspirators (and in fact, were presented as openly hostile to the defendant/president), and the exception can't apply because most of the testimony I saw wasn't "Trump said this" so much as "what I heard" or "what I was told" or "what I believe happened based on reports."
The whistleblower clearly IS NOT a co-conspirator either. So, maybe I'm wrong, but please, enlighten me on HOW this hearsay exception applies?
"Does anyone buy the big lie that the the whistle-blower is receiving death threats?"
-- I believe it. But, it is the internet. Bob Ross and Mr. Rogers would get death threats if they were on the internet.
"If the House passes Articlles of Impeachment, the Senate should hire John Ratcliffe as a manager and call Hunter Biden as the first witness."
-- Can they do that? I thought, in general, the prosecution makes a case first. So, wouldn't they have to make a case against Trump and THEN call witnesses for exculpatory evidence? It's probably different because it is Congress though. But, it feels weird to bring in Hunter Biden first before a case has actually been advanced against Trump in the Senate.
Browndog,
They won't do a secret ballot because it won't protect them from blowback in a conviction. The Republicans who vote to acquit will publicize their own votes, thus identifying all of the Republicans who voted to convict by inference. Really, the Democrats could really screw the Republicans by having all of them vote to convict, but then lying outright about individual votes thus making it look like even more Republicans voted to convict than did so.
This secret ballot idea isn't a solution to the problem of having to defend a choice- it doesn't work, and it just make them look even more spineless than they already do.
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
OMG! Are you saying that the gossip witnesses were co-conspirators?
Is this idiot really a lawyer?
I don't think she is terribly bright, but she is definitely street smart.
I see AZ Democrats threatening to primary her so you know she is smarter than they are.
Low bar, I know.
"Is this idiot really a lawyer?"
-- I'm not a lawyer, but, I came to roughly the same conclusion that I don't think that exception applies. So, I'm curious to hear -- was it Uhr? -- come back and explain the reasoning.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा