November 1, 2019

"The Pelosi impeachment resolution was supposed to deprive the GOP of its complaint that the process wasn't formal. Instead, it formalized a rigged process..."

"... and gives Republicans a solid rationale for rejecting the entire proceeding. Democrats gripe that the GOP refuses to talk about the substance of the case against the president. But it is Democrats who have made that impossible, given the secrecy and one-sided approach. Due process is at the heart of America's system of ordered liberty, and the 'evidence' Democrats are secretly compiling in the basement of the House is already soiled. That's why every House Republican -- even vulnerable ones -- felt confident in voting 'no' on Thursday's resolution. Republicans pointed out that even as Democrats were claiming the vote meant 'transparency,' Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff was holding another closed hearing, to which most of the House and the president's legal counsel weren't privy. 'Democrats cannot fix this process,' said House GOP Conference Chair Liz Cheney after the vote. 'This is a process that has been fundamentally tainted.'"

Writes Kimberley Strassel in "A Partisan Impeachment Vote" (WSJ). She notes that when the House impeached Bill Clinton, there was a motion to dismiss in the Senate. The motion was voted down, so the Senate went on to conduct its idea of a trial, so the Democrats established a precedent for a motion to dismiss, and — Strassel says — the GOP majority in the Senate could vote yes on such a motion in the Trump case, based on the unfairness of the process in the House.

76 comments:

Bay Area Guy said...

Kim Strassel of the WSJ is kinda like the Althouse of journalism. The gal is a ferocious thinker and writer. Yes, she's probably a Republican, so maybe she's a tad biased, but her reporting is outstanding. She digs hard into the facts.

Journalism could use a lot more Kim Strassels.

Oh yeah, the Pelosi-Schiff impeachment farce is still rigged. The "air of legitimacy" still stinks.

Dave Begley said...

The Articles of Impeachment are the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.

Motion to Dismiss granted. End of story.

gilbar said...

Bay Area Guy said...
Kim Strassel of the WSJ is kinda like the Althouse of journalism


Wait a minute? Are you suggesting some sort of a contest between them?
Some sort of Jello Wrestling? Or is that just me?

David Jones said...

We are seeing in this country an organized "coup" in this country.We are seeing the forces that were once unseen..CIA,FBI...weaponized for political gain.If Donald Trump had NOT been elected we would never have known the corruption that exists in our government.I believe we as citizens demand a "housecleaning" of these corrupt institutions.
The democrats have set a course to upend the 2016 election.They will pay a heavy price..now and in the future.We need to pray more than ever.

readering said...

House can do what it likes and Senate can do what it likes. But I don't think this unfair process justification will work. Either evidence will be compelling or it won't be. Sounds bad so far. Unfortunately few care about Ukraine. Imagine if it were Israel.

Sprezzatura said...

"the GOP majority in the Senate could vote yes on such a motion in the Trump case, based on the unfairness of the process in the House."

Ha ha ha.

Right, cons are really worried about structural/process unfairness re our system of government.

Thankfully North Dakota and such will fix it.

Michael K said...

I read an Andy McCarthy column written last week that predicted the Dims would allow transcripts and GOP cross examination and warning Trump that this was a serious business and he had to make a defence besides unfair process.

Boy was he wrong ! They have discredited themselves and I wonder why. I assume they know they have nothing,.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

Alex Vindman’s Impeachment Testimony Completely Rested On His Personal Opinions

The alphabet hack nets(D) opinionated about how damning it was - lacing their news with opinion.

Martin said...

The first closed hearing, or GOP subpoena proposal that is rejected, or GOP question that is cut off by the chair, will go viral and the whole sham will be revealed to one and all for what it is.

If they really thought they had something on Trump, they wouldn't be blowing smoke up everyone's rear end. The fact that they keep doing so says they know they don't have a case, and at best they are hoping to find one with this non-process process.

iowan2 said...

Just heard Debi Stabenow being interviewed. She repeated the claim that the new rules will allow everything the Republicans wanted. Yes Republicans will get to subpoena witnesses, the President will be allowed to participate. Then she let the cat out of the bag... if there are hearings in the HJC.

That sounds to me like Schiff will continue to do his one sided, super secret, dungeon interagations, without releasing transcripts. Nadler will do few if any. Schiff will feed Nadler ONLY those portions of the interview that serves the Dem purposes of writing a stinging Articles of Impeachment.

daskol said...

The funniest part of all this theater is the somber way the Dem legislators talk about discharging their unpleasant and necessary duty, essential to the protection of the American way as we know it. "Damn the politics!" we have no other choice. Corey Booker has literally been going around saying "Damn the politics" for a few weeks, in fact. Such shameless creatures, who will say anything they're told to say, micro-targeting their messaging to the stupid and ill-informed. Meanwhile, those who are better informed and more cognitively advantaged have to be wondering why the hell we keep these leeches around and give them so much influence and accord them such prestige. They're just vessels for the message of their masters, and most of them are not even that good at it. Bunch of losers.

tim maguire said...

The question is, are they fooling enough people? The flailing about that they're doing trying to convince people they aren't just partisan hacks but actually give a damn about doing the right thing suggests they know they aren't.

They can fake outrage, but they can't fake sincerity.

Todd said...

I DON'T want the Senate to "let this go". I want them to take it VERY seriously and in fact, I want them to start the impeachment trial NOW, today. Don't even wait for Congress to do a formal impeachment vote.

Get this thing going and hold a very complete, very thorough, and VERY public trial.

Lets get this party started!

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

I think if they dismiss it without a trial, that sort of plays into the hands of the Democrats. But then again, only 30% of Americans want Trump removed even if the things the Democrats claim are all true, so maybe that is the best use of the country’s time. Maybe it’s not worth it to spend the summer turning over rocks in the Ukraine, etc, satisfying as that may be for Trump supporters.

But rooting out the rot in the CIA and FBI is well worth the country’s time.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

If Republicans in the Senate can vote to dismiss, why should we worry about a House vote to impeach being divisive? Also, even if they were to convict, they could decline to bar Trump from running for a second term. So there goes the ignoring the voters argument about impeachment too.

Hagar said...

The political blathering in Washington about formal technicalities does not really matter. Impeachment will stand or fall on whether the public feels there was a "high crime or misdemeanor" worthy of impeachment.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

Sharyl Attkisson��️‍♂️
@SharylAttkisson
If the reporting is correct, it implies the "whistleblower" could have been worried Trump was getting close to uncovering Democrat links to Ukraine's interference in US elections in 2016.


Ummm yeah.

The Full Scope of Ukraine’s Impact on the 2016 Election Has Yet to Be Examined. - The Nation

Mike Sylwester said...

the GOP refuses to talk about the substance of the case

The substance of the case is that Vice President Biden was appointed to act as the Obama Administration's "point-man on Ukraine". Subsequent to that appointment, Ukrainians paid large amounts of money to Biden's son Hunter.

These payments were bribes to the Biden family, in return for which Vice President Biden, the US Government's "point-man on Ukraine" would act to benefit the Ukrainians who paid the bribes to his son.

This Ukrainian bribing of the US Vice President is part of the substance of the case.

The US State Department was and still is complicit in this bribing of our former US President. The US State Department will not investigate this bribing. Never, ever.

When our current President Trump went around the US State Department to investigate the bribing of Biden, Trump was acting to benefit our US Government -- not to benefit merely himself.

That is the substance of the case.

Lucien said...

If I were the Republicans, every other phrase out of my mouth would be "Eric Ciaramella". WIll Schiff let House Republicans subpoena Ciaramella to testify? If he doesn't, how can he expect any R to vote to impeach; and if Ciaramella isn't subpoenaed by the House, then won't he be by the Senate (in the event of a trial)?

rhhardin said...

You want to convict only against the best possible defense, so that a conviction has meaning. A prosecutor should want transparency that works against him for that reason.

Otherwise you're just a political hack.

The dems are colorful, though. The characters wouldn't stand up in fiction but they do in reality.

Nonapod said...

Clearly they've painted themselves into a corner. They have a rabid base, big donors, the main stream media, and a cabal of Deep Staters who want Trump gone, and they don't care how. But most of them don't really believe any of the current candidates have much of a prayer of doing it electorally. So impeachment is all they believe have.

But they are unable to persuade enough normal voters in key areas that the Orange Man is so Bad that he just has to be impeached.

So all they can do is keep putting on the impeachment play and praying that it somehow convinces enough people that Trump is the devil or whatever. But they can't do it fairly becuase then the Republicans will expose it for the sham that it so clearly is. There's just no good options for them.

Seeing Red said...

Via Insty:

First, as discussed below, Vindman’s testimony about the July 25 call between the two presidents does not add any new facts. So, what does he say? He offers his opinions about the wisdom of the call. That’s it. His testimony about the substance of that call consists of five sentences at the end of his prepared testimony. Those five sentences basically comprise two opinions....

Kevin said...

This is such a simple and easily-seen notion - that the Senate could simply vote on a motion to dismiss and move on. Anyone who has had experience in the legal system thought of this long ago, yet how many of the babbling heads, many of them veterans of the Clinton impeachment or judges and lawyers themselves, have raised this issue?

Is it because they're so collectively stupid?

Or is it because the rules of making a living opinion on televisionrequire one never advance an argument which stops the discussion cold?

Mike Sylwester said...

Part of due process is that the defendant is given all the exonerating evidence that was collected during the police investigation.

It seems that the only mechanism to provide the exonerating evidence to President Trump is that everyone is supposed to rely on the supposed principled conduct of Adam Schiff and his few Trump-hating co-conspirators who are collecting ALL the evidence in very strict secrecy.

When and how will Schiff provide all the exonerating evidence -- and how will anyone else ever know that he actually has done so?

Jeff Brokaw said...

The Clinton impeachment at least had a whiff of law-and-order about it, and he had a hell of a lot of actual criminal activity in his background to cover up. But looking back, it wasn’t worth the trouble even with all of that.

The process itself is very damaging to the fabric of the nation unless a president has lost (essentially) all public support, e.g. Nixon’s resignation under imminent threat of impeachment.

Our government loses more legitimacy with each passing day.

traditionalguy said...

I smell a rat. Pelosi is once more playing into DJT’s hands. He seems to be in control. Is it what he has on her? Were her fingerprints on the Baghdadi compound cups from her and Shift’s trip “to Jordan”the week after DJT “pulled out” the 38 Rangers from the Syria to the Iraqi part of this conquered Caliph?

Gusty Winds said...

The trial in the Senate could benefit Trump. He will be allowed to defend himself, and a lot of Dem/Deep State dirty secrets will be aired.

I wonder if the entire sham impeachment process with no due process is being done in hopes the Senate will dismiss. You never know how these crooked people think and plan. Schiff, Pelosi, Brennan, Comey, and the rest may fear the trial more that Trump does.

Yancey Ward said...

What is perplexing to me is that the Democrats think this process is better politically than an open hearing with the minority free to ask and expect answers to questions in cross; this is especially true if you really believe Trump should be removed from office. It is foolish because if the secrecy is an attempt to hide the weakness of the case, which is really only logical explanation for doing it this way, then the strategy fails as soon as you move it to the Senate.

The only way you are going to convict Trump is by convincing enough of the public that he deserves removal, and you can't do that with star chamber inquisitions. This isn't a grand jury process- something this serious needs to be as open from the start as is possible.

steve uhr said...

Why wouldn’t the motion to dismiss be decided by the presiding judge—Chief Justice Roberts? Like a real trial.

Yancey Ward said...

I want a full trial in the Senate at this point. It might be the only chance Trump ever has of getting the media to cover the construction of all the hoaxes perpetrated by the Democrats and their mediaswine. These will be subpoenae that none of these deep state actors will be able to quash.

narciso said...

guess what this involves,


https://www.stalkerzone.org/igor-kolomoisky-was-charged-in-the-us-with-creating-a-criminal-network/

Yancey Ward said...

Steve Uhr asked:

"Why wouldn’t the motion to dismiss be decided by the presiding judge—Chief Justice Roberts? Like a real trial."

The Chief Justice isn't in control, the Senate is- the Senate makes all the rules here. In 1999, the Senate voted on the dismissal resolution offered, I think, by Robert Byrd. I think the motion was defeated along party lines with only one Democrat wanting the full trial.

Bay Area Guy said...

There are 3 big waves of political events swirling about:

1. The Schiff impeachment farce

2. The Durham criminal investigation/Horowitz IG Report.

3. The 2020 election

Obviously, 1 favors the left, 2 favors Trump, and 3 slightly favors Trump now (tons of $$, power of incumbency).

The problem for Trump is asymetrical lawfare. Schiff is moving quicker (after Nadler stalled out on the bogus Mueller Report), while Horowitz is moving much too slow. Durham is going slow too, because he is trying to be a legitimate prosecutor, not a political hack.

This hurts Trump in the short run. Horowitz has delayed, delayed, and delayed.

Of course, 1 & 2 should be dropped, and the country focus on 3 -- but the Left won't do that because they know they are slightly losing 3 and are not confident Bident/Sanders or Warren can pull it out.

Anyway, there's a lotta action in the political arena. Trump, to his credit, has learned to take a punch. He's taken a lot, and is still standing. I hope his legal team and allied political support (Jordan, Meadows, Gaetz, Ratcliffe, McConnell) will continue to fight for him.

Drago said...

steve uhr: "Why wouldn’t the motion to dismiss be decided by the presiding judge—Chief Justice Roberts? Like a real trial."

Impeachment is a political process. Roberts will simply defer to a Senate vote on any Motion to Dismiss.

Im afraid you lefties will simply have to hope Roberts declares the Motion to Dismiss a rax so Roberts can take control!!

LOL

Lets get real. The left does not want a Senate trial with republicans calling witnesses and questioning witnesses and doing it all out in the open.

What the dems want is for the House to impeach to satisfy their lunatic base voting mob and to have that House proceeding last deep into the election without allowing the coup-meisters to be exposed.

Beasts of England said...

’Why wouldn’t the motion to dismiss be decided by the presiding judge—Chief Justice Roberts?’

There’s precedent in the Senate. A motion to dismiss was introduced but defeated in the Clinton impeachment trial.

Churchy LaFemme: said...

2. The Durham criminal investigation/Horowitz IG Report.

I'm beginning to think these are mystical. Or at best like fusion power or Brazil.

narciso said...

kolomoisky, burismas owner, had a lot of money in Delaware real estate, among other places,

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

I want a full trial in the Senate at this point

You aren't likely to get it anytime soon. Impeachment theatre has two goals;

1) Smear Trump with selective negative leaks to damage his reelection chances in the long term
2) Appease resist!!!! lunatics in the near term

Democrats are in no way interested in giving Trump the ability to defend himself on anything resembling a level playing field. They would much rather employ their media puppets to smear and slash on demand and preserve their perceived advantage as long as possible.

Bay Area Guy said...

Biden is bleeding campaign cash.

Money Quote:

Collectively, the expenditures have taken a toll on the Biden campaign’s bottom line and raised questions about its long-term viability. Overall, Biden currently has less than $9 million cash on-hand after taking in roughly $15.7 million during Q3 and spending $17.6 million during that same period.

$ 9 Million? That's peanuts. He's dead man walking, and doesn't even know it.

Wince said...

Trump should show up for the senate trial carrying Baghdadi's still intact head.

Michael K said...

Lets get real. The left does not want a Senate trial with republicans calling witnesses and questioning witnesses and doing it all out in the open.

What the dems want is for the House to impeach to satisfy their lunatic base voting mob and to have that House proceeding last deep into the election without allowing the coup-meisters to be exposed.


Yes and when the indictments start rolling out, they will have more incentive to drag it out.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

"why should we worry about a House vote to impeach being divisive? “

Which is this? Denial or bargaining, sometimes it’s hard to tell.

Ken B said...

Mitch is too smart to vote it down. Especially if Trump's lawyer Trey Gowdy gets to cross examine witnesses.

Mitch remember is the guy who forced a vote on the Green New Deal, to expose it.

Bilwick said...

The Democratic case for impeachment (short, honest version): "We wanted Hillary to win."

Bay Area Guy said...

The Democratic case for impeachment (short, honest version): "We wanted Hillary to win." ... and we're still butthurt that she lost!

steve uhr said...

Why does the constitution require that the Chief Justice preside over a trial to impeach the president if he has no power to do what judges do. Rule on objections and motions. He has more important things to do than be a mere rubber stamp. He should have some meaningful authority.

Skippy Tisdale said...

The fact that they keep doing so says they know they don't have a case

https://vimeo.com/25714112

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

"Sounds bad so far. “

The cherry picked leaks from the secret trial where no cross examination or exculpatory witnesses are allowed sound bad? You don’t say.

"Nobody cares about Ukraine" and the way that Burisma was formed by a former government official shunting energy leases to a company he controlled. Nobody cares about Biden’s son providing cover for such Oligarchs by acting as a human shield!

It seems like Biden’s son took over three million dollars in oil revenue from that poor country for the “service” of protecting it from prosecution.

That’s what readering thinks is a winning argument.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

I guess if the only news you believe is what you see on CNN and read in the Washington Post, it sounds pretty bad.

Yancey Ward said...

"Why does the constitution require that the Chief Justice preside over a trial to impeach the president if he has no power to do what judges do. Rule on objections and motions. He has more important things to do than be a mere rubber stamp. He should have some meaningful authority."

It doesn't matter since the Senate makes all the rules. Notice that the Constitution is silent about what the Chief Justice is to do outside "presiding". If I were you, I would look into the Senate's rules regarding the Chief Justice's powers here.

effinayright said...

steve uhr said...
Why does the constitution require that the Chief Justice preside over a trial to impeach the president if he has no power to do what judges do. Rule on objections and motions. He has more important things to do than be a mere rubber stamp. He should have some meaningful authority.
**********

Ordinarily, the VP presides over the Senate. Since the VP is in line to succeed the POTUS if the latter were removed, he can't preside over a trial which could benefit him.

So the Chief Justice---nominally a disinterested party---presides, but he doesn't decide anything in a judicial sense, only in a procedural sense. If a motion to dismiss were offered, the Justice would call the question, but it would be the Senate members who voted it up or down.

In any case, your complaint should be addressed to the Framers, not to us. What role would *you* have the Chief Justice play?

Bilwick said...

I saw where Pelosi justified the impeachment proceeedings because Trump, she said, "undermined American security." As a child of the Cold War with a long memory, I can tell you just how much American security means to "liberals." The party line ever changeth.

iowan2 said...

The Intel community is slimy if not crooked. The State Dept though. Is a criminal enterprise

Sebastian said...

The inquiry is a big FU to Althouse and the Althouses of America.

Will they stick it to the Dems or cave once again, voting for Lizzie even though they "can't stand her" cuz Trump means chaos and less abortion?

Bay Area Guy said...

@Yancey,

It doesn't matter since the Senate makes all the rules. Notice that the Constitution is silent about what the Chief Justice is to do outside "presiding". If I were you, I would look into the Senate's rules regarding the Chief Justice's powers here.

True, but here's the danger. Asymetrical warfare. The Senate margin is narrow, 53-47, so you have Senator Pierre Delecto and maybe 3 other weak-knee types who will stifle McConnell on rule-making, insist that that the Dems get all the "fair" rules currently being denied to their counterparts in the House.

This gives the Senate Dems a shot. Probably, not on the 2/3 vote needed to remove Trump, but to open the door for the Dems to spread more amorphous dirt on Trump, and for the media to paste it all over the headlines.

Recall, the Dem objective isn't to win the Impeachment war, but to win back the White House in 2020. If they dirty up Trump enough or politically injure him or somehow drive a wedge between him and his supporters, they will have succeeded.

Recall No. 2 -- Yes, the Clinton impeachment seemed to boomerang and help Clinton politically. And, yet, the impeachment/Clinton baggage probably hurt Gore somewhat in a razor close 2000 election that barely went to Bush.

Beasts of England said...

Just a reminder: Mitch is up for re-election in 2020. He’d like to keep his job.

Mark said...

The motion would be for failure to state a claim.

Mark said...

I read an Andy McCarthy column written last week that . . .
Boy was he wrong!


Andy McCarthy has often been as astute as Trey Gowdy.

Mark said...

The Clinton impeachment at least had a whiff of law-and-order about it

The impeachment did. The Senate proceeding -- in no way was it a trial -- was a farce.

Mark said...

Why wouldn’t the motion to dismiss be decided by the presiding judge—Chief Justice Roberts?

The Chief Justice does NOT sit as a judge. He sits as the presiding officer. The Senate has the sole Power to try all Impeachments, i.e. the Senate itself is the judge.

steve uhr said...

The question is one of constitutional interpretation; ie what did the founders mean when they said “preside”. My hunch is it had about the same meaning in 1787 that it does today.

Gk1 said...

I'm looking at the bright side in all of this. Congress is too busy with this bullshit to generate more debilitating laws and other foolishness while this goes on. It's as if congress was on an extended holiday until November 2020.

The democrats have basically conceded they will get nothing they want unless Trump loses in 2020 so why not do everything in their power to drag down his numbers? That is all this is about anyway.

Why should Trump even pretend to work or even listen to Pelosi and Shumer until they are gone from power? This is like gridlock DELUXE! :-)

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

He’s more of a master of ceremonies.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Clearly they've painted themselves into a corner. They have a rabid base, big donors, the main stream media, and a cabal of Deep Staters who want Trump gone, and they don't care how. But most of them don't really believe any of the current candidates have much of a prayer of doing it electorally. So impeachment is all they believe have.”

I thought so - but here is a thought. One of their goals is to get ahold of the Mueller investigation’s mountain of documents, hundreds of interview transcripts, grand jury transcripts, etc, plus the fruits of all of the illegal FISA spying, both Title VII up through spring of 2016, plus Title I surveillance for a year starting right before the 2018 election. They have already convinced an Obama appointed district court judge to give them the grand jury testimony (despite not being within any grand jury secrecy exception), and it looks like the DOJ appeal is going to a panel of Clinton and Obama appeal judges. They have found another Obama judge to try to override Executive Privilege with. As long as the impeachment inquiry was just Palsi and Schifty, that was not probably going anywhere. But now? The Supreme Court found an impeachment investigation sufficient for piercing Executive Privilege in the Nixon case, and getting their hands on what they believe to be the mother load of dirt on Trump. Mueller was somewhat constrained on what his people could do with all that evidence and information, because they were legally working for Trump, and had a limited charter. Schifty and Wadler don’t.

Michael K said...

The Supreme Court found an impeachment investigation sufficient for piercing Executive Privilege in the Nixon case, and getting their hands on what they believe to be the mother load of dirt on Trump.

That is why an impeachment resolution by the House will have to exist in order to validate subpoenas. Nancy is not sure enough of her caucus to hold such a vote and the judges don't get beyond that.

Michael K said...

So the Chief Justice---nominally a disinterested party---presides, but he doesn't decide anything in a judicial sense, only in a procedural sense.

I suspect the Chief Justice can rule on admissibility of evidence and hearsay.

A motion to dismiss would be voted on by the Senate.

Bruce Hayden said...

“ True, but here's the danger. Asymetrical warfare. The Senate margin is narrow, 53-47, so you have Senator Pierre Delecto and maybe 3 other weak-knee types who will stifle McConnell on rule-making, insist that that the Dems get all the "fair" rules currently being denied to their counterparts in the House.”

Another thought. Titular Lawfare leader, Lawrence Tribe, has pointed out that the Constitution does not require 2/3 of all Senators for removal, but only 2/3 of those present. There was a proposal yesterday suggesting that one possible way around this is to form a committee of, say, 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats, and let them decide. After all, a significant number of Dem Senators will be running for President, while an outsized number of Republican Senators will be running for reelection. And that change would only require 51 votes. Instead of peeling off 20 Republicans, it would only require maybe four.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

So if Republicans win half of those Trump majority districts that voted for impeachment yesterday, Nancy is out on her keister.

Yancey Ward said...

"The question is one of constitutional interpretation; ie what did the founders mean when they said “preside”. My hunch is it had about the same meaning in 1787 that it does today."

LOL! And you are a lawyer? There is no interpretation required- the Senate is given the sole power to try impeachments- full stop. The only thing the Chief Justice might do is to make determinations on what the Senate's own rules state, but the Senate can change those rules, or ignore the rulings if they wish since there is nothing the Chief Justice could do for enforcement. That is what sole power means. The Senate doesn't even have to take the articles of impeachment and act on them in any way.

Michael K said...

And that change would only require 51 votes. Instead of peeling off 20 Republicans, it would only require maybe four.

Yes and I hope Mitch sees this.

Yancey Ward said...

"The Supreme Court found an impeachment investigation sufficient for piercing Executive Privilege in the Nixon case, and getting their hands on what they believe to be the mother load of dirt on Trump. Mueller was somewhat constrained on what his people could do with all that evidence and information"

This doesn't worry me from a political perspective- if there were anything damaging in all that evidence pile, it is already in the Mueller Report's unredacted sections, or was leaked to the media soon after it was found. There will be nothing new in it, and it is far more likely to actually benefit Trump since the same people would have carefully kept hidden any exculpatory evidence by either burying it deep in that pile, or issuing gag orders to the various witnesses.

The thing to be worried about is the destruction of government norms, but we are far down that rabbit hole already, and there may be no way out.

Gk1 said...

I wonder if it will have been worth it to the democrats that this is the new normal? They were all for independent counsels until Ken Starr appeared then for some reason it didn't see like a good idea any more and wasn't renewed. Now the house can impeach a president because they don't like him or his policies. That seems like a pretty low bar and not what the founders had in mind.

Drago said...

steve uhr: "The question is one of constitutional interpretation; ie what did the founders mean when they said “preside”. My hunch is it had about the same meaning in 1787 that it does today."

Oh no no no Li'l Stevie.

As you lefties have been pointing out for years, we should never listen to what these horrible dead white European males wrote and said in that much simpler time which is why the dems must be allowed to change everything about the Constitution.

Please try and stay consistent with the entirety of your lunatic marxist base.

Birkel said...

Left Bank asserted above that the Senate could bar Trump from running for president. That is wrong. It takes a constitutional amendment to add a qualification for president.

Left Bank is stupidly wishcasting.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

Mueller had basically leaked everything that Hillary’s lawyer, who was running the investigation knew. “Everybody knew what Mueller knew” so holding out hope that there is more seems pretty desperate.

I think they are really hoping to manufacture more out of whatever dross they find.

Rusty said...

I think what we are missing, or rather forced mis-direction. And clumsily at that. is what Barr is digging up. I can't help but think that the impeachment process is an attempt to keep the investigation as far from members of congress as possible. I'll go as far to say that Palosi will reign in the impeachment process if Trump calls Barr to heel(dog imagery). The question, to me, becomes. How many dems on the intelligence committee were in on this Ukraine thing? hence the secrecy. Hence the poorly cobbled together dog and pony show.