The Senate doesn't control the House; Why should the House control the Senate? The Constitution gives the House "the sole Power of Impeachment" and the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments." That's the text of the document the House Democrats have been making such a show of solemnly honoring. Are they going to switch now to creative hijinks? How far can they go?!
Go as far as you can!!! Rubin eggs them on. Forget how you deafened yourself to the accusations Republicans made about the "sham impeachment." Time steal their rhetoric and call it a "sham trial." Oh, you do have to be careful. This is politics and there are winners and losers. Who's worse off if the people get the idea "sham"? Will the Democrats' "sham trial" framing enhance the Republicans' "sham impeachment" framing? Republicans say a sham impeachment, like a frivolous lawsuit, needs to be met with anti-sham tools and dismissed summarily, or the shamsters will file one frivolous impeachment after another and clog up the Senate. Frivolous lawsuits don't go to trial in the courts. The courts, carrying out their duty to decide cases, have devised methods to save themselves from being ruined by excessive and inappropriate work that comes in the form of a case.
Rubin sets out 5 ideas:
1. Make "procedural demands" modeled on the procedures used in the Bill Clinton impeachment trial (when the Senate adopted the procedures unanimously). This is something only the Senate can do, Rubin concedes, so it's not an answer to the question in her headline.
2. Some Republican senators — Romney, Collins, and Murkowski, perhaps — could ally with Democratic senators, deprive the GOP of a majority, and get negotiation over the procedures. Again, this isn't something the House Democrats could do, just the Senate exercising its "sole power to try."
3. This one is something the House Democrats could do: Vote for impeachment and then not send it to the Senate, not until the Senate agrees to the rules the Democrats want. Rubin says this could put pressure on McConnell and "further unhinge Trump." This puts too much trust in the assumption that Trump is unhinged.*
4. Just keep doing #3, even if it never works. Never send the impeachment to the Senate. The goal of no "sham trial" can be achieved by causing there never to be a trial. Ha ha! That will get him! There will be "a permanent stain on Trump’s presidency." He's denied the acquittal. But Rubin worries that the House Democrats will be regarded as the "constitutional malefactors." They've been trying to build a reputation as faithful servants of the old document. It's good politics, so don't screw up the politics. Rubin advises against this option.
5. Democrats could involve Chief Justice Roberts (who must preside over the trial). Maybe he'll read the Constitution as giving him the power to impose the procedures that the Senate declined to adopt. This is not going to happen, as I think Rubin knows, but she thinks it's worth doing as a way to make people feel that the trial is a sham. It seems to me that it will only make clear that the Constitution gives the Senate the "sole power to try" and that includes determining what the procedures are.
_______________________
* The effort to portray Trump as "unhinged" is old. On September 23, 2016, I blogged:
[To t]he NYT — in "Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on That, Too" ... Hillary is deep and Trump is shallow:By the way, "Unhinged" is the title of the book Omarosa wrote about her experience with Trump. Back in August 2018, I wrote:
Mrs. Clinton has a thick dossier on Mr. Trump after months of research and meetings with her debate team, including analysis and assumptions about his psychological makeup that Clinton advisers described as critical to understanding how to knock Mr. Trump off balance. Mrs. Clinton has concluded that catching Mr. Trump in a lie during the debate is not enough to beat him: She needs the huge television audience to see him as temperamentally unfit for the presidency, and that she has the power to unhinge him.[The NYT notes] Hillary's idea that she might be able to annoy Trump by calling him "Donald."...
Mr. Trump, in turn, is approaching the debate like a Big Man on Campus who thinks his last-minute term paper will be dazzling simply because he wrote it.....
"Unhinged" is such a common insult these days, but I heard some comedian say something like: "They said I was 'unhinged,' but I don't even have hinges." I'm just going to guess it was Kathy Griffin, because I can't find the joke on the internet and I recently sat through her 3-hour show. I liked that joke, and I'm tired of the insult "unhinged" (and all the other insults that rest on the premise of mental illness, a condition that warrants empathy (including my own longstanding tag "Trump derangement syndrome")).
I can also see that when the comedian Michelle Wolf was called "unhinged," she reacted with the joke, "Now is not the time to be hinged," but I like "I don't even have hinges" much better, because it takes you immediately to the concrete image — a person with hinges.
Posts
131 comments:
The Dems already ensured it will be a sham trial. They are trying to control the outcome, not prevent it.
You have to have an audience in mind for whatever you try. Politics always thinks of women.
Washington Post's own "Conservative" voice, is anything BUT conservative. Why do they lie about that, to make it LOOK like they are bipartisan????
So, basically, the Rubin column could be reduced to two words: they can’t. But even an op-ed writer can’t collect a pay check for that. So bloviating must be done, massive padding must be applied.
Funny how “integrity” for a Democrat means advancing Democratic interests, and “integrity” for a Republican means...advancing Democratic interests.
At least they’re consistent.
wendybar said...Washington Post's own "Conservative" voice, is anything BUT conservative. Why do they lie about that, to make it LOOK like they are bipartisan????
Every lefty publication needs a house conservative. It’s a sweet gig with much lower standards, so it’s attractive to hacks who can’t make it honestly.
The Senate should use its authority under the penumbra of the Constitution to impeach Adam Schiff. Also, they should subpoena the tax and divorce records of any donor to his campaigns in the last ten years.
If we're going to stick with the Soviet style process shouldn't we just skip the trial and go straight to the execution?
Asking for Chuck.
One of the most delightful impeachment dividends has been watching House Democrats genuflect to our racist Founding Fathers.
I'm curious about the Constitutional arguments for #3. If the House does indeed impeach, what is the actual significance of "sending" the paperwork to the Senate? What would prevent the Senate from holding a trial?
Heck, they could sit down for a trial with great formality. Chief Justice Roberts could gavel the session into order and gravely declare, "Let the prosecution present its opening arguments." and turn to the empty table where the House hasn't shown up. Give them maybe half an hour of dead air, and dismiss the charges.
It's too bad the Democrats can't get gruntled.
Old and busted: We must impeach Trump for his crimes
The new hotness: we must stop this impeschment because people are wise to this farce
’Vote for impeachment and then not send it to the Senate, not until the Senate agrees to the rules the Democrats want.’
The Trump 2020 Campaign thanks you for this in-kind contribution!
A sham impeachment deserves a sham trial, n'est pas?
Also, if Trump is a ‘clear and present danger’ to the country - as claimed by Pelosi to justify their rush to impeach - then how can they delay sending the articles for even a single day?
Rubin is one of those rare people who's as ugly on the inside as the outside.
"Conservative" my a**.
It could be worse.
The radical Moslem government of Imran Khan has sentenced former President Musharraf to death for treason (abuse of power and obstruction of Parliament).
Though Musharraf is in Dubai for "medical treatment" and probably does not intend to go home anytime soon.
@gspencer: Oui.
The Senate should endeavor to match the seriousness and procedural discipline of the House.
Vexatious impeachers.
Jen Rubin is unhinged. Full stop.
Never send the impeachment to the Senate.
Please please please do this. Trump is going to be re-elected. The Rep problem is that Trump's supporters don't necessarily support or vote for other Reps. Linking the impeachment directly to other races will convince them to vote Rep to help Trump solving their biggest problem.
Perhaps Trump should embrace his inner Lincoln, suspend habeus corpus, and send House and Senate Dems to the [supposedly real] FEMA camps for re-education. A little ideological jujitsu as that is what the SJWs have lined up for white hetero males.
That living Constitution thing allows it.
There will be "a permanent stain on Trump’s presidency."
In poker this is what's known as a "tell." This isn't about any wrong doing by Trump, obviously. It's about "getting" Trump. And it also shows the insularity of these people. The stain won't be on Trump, it will be on the Democrat party.
I refuse to participate in this travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham!
And I refuse to comment on Jennifer Rubin's inanity and insanity.
A permanent stain? Have they tried Shout? I know a great dry cleaner.
But I'm not worried. Trump has a hundred thousand of those ties. Would you like to buy one?
These ideas are circulating right now on what pretends to be the intellectual left today. That Rubin cites this nonsense just reinforces that she is nowhere near being a conservative. She is a left wing shill and drank like the rest of them.
They are saying to the rest of the country, that they cheated their asses off in Schifty’s basement star chamber hearings, where he and Wadler in their hearings completely controlled what witnesses could be called and what they could be asked. Now they just figured out that the minute that they vote out Articles of Impeachment, they lose control of the process, and a lot of Republicans are ready to even the score in the Senate, where they have the advantage of a majority. Whoops.
Someone pointed out that cheating is not just acceptable, but celebrated on the left, because their goals are noble (or some such balderdash (since “malarkey” has been appropriated by Biden)). This is part of why Lawfare has been so successful of late - their hallmark is cheating, and Obama appointed judges are esp susceptible to their ends justifies their means type of legal manipulations.
I hope Cocaine Mitch calls a vote for this 5 minutes after getting it from the House.
Treat it with the contempt it deserves.
Michelle Malkin, "Unhinged". https://www.amazon.com/Unhinged-Exposing-Liberals-Gone-Wild/dp/0895260301
Not a lawyer but I would choose from one of two options: Graham's no witnesses approach or treat it the output from the House as "the prosecution rests." No new evidence, or witnesses allowed for the House members prosecuting the case. Furthermore:
1) No Hearsay evidence allowed.
2) The standard is reasonable doubt.
3) Trump's team can put up a very robust defense-i.e., call the whistleblower, call Hunter Biden, call Chalupa, posit the theory (and provide evidence) that Ukraine did interfere in the 2016 elections.
4) The witnesses the Republican House requested and were denied must be honored, but additional witnesses may be allowed.
Trump should argue to have the second Article tossed by Roberts as a separation of powers issue. He should also aggressively push to mirror the House procedures (rebuttal witnesses etc.)-if it was good enough for impeachment in the House, it's good enough in the Senate.
This process mirrors both legal proceedings and the House proceedings. I don't know what could be objectionable-certainly it is much fairer than the House proceedings.
Rubin, a self-professed conservative, is anything but.
“Also, if Trump is a ‘clear and present danger’ to the country - as claimed by Pelosi to justify their rush to impeach - then how can they delay sending the articles for even a single day?”
What they seem to be forgetting is that the reason that they absolutely had to wrap up impeachment this year, is that their impeachment circus would suck the O2 out of their Presidential nominating process starting right after the first of the year. I think that we just saw what would happen if the Dems held a debate, and no one watched. Imagine if this happened all the way up through their convention. The House crazies were perfectly content to do their crazy stuff right up to the election, and beyond. But that would almost assure a Republican House next Congress, probably along with a Republican Senate, four more years of Trump, a 6-3 or even 7-2 Supreme Court, and the Judiciary secures in Republican hands. Cooler heads prevailed, and they got their marching orders - get their nonsense done this year. Next year is a Presidential election year, and the sort of crazy partisan nonsense we have seen this year in the House will be over. Or else. Most of their House caucus understands the “or else”.
...get their nonsense done this year. Next year is a Presidential election year, and the sort of crazy partisan nonsense we have seen this year in the House will be over...
A fair theory, but if you want people to forget your crazy come election time why do you go through the process to get the thing that will remind people of it?
Find the clip of Nancy Pelosi - when asked about the Constitutionality of the ACA - she laughs and says the 'we don't need the Constitution" -- 'Democrats in the house can do whatever they want.'
The idea the corrupt democratic party cares at all about The Constitution - is laughable.
The Democrats are flailing, out of ideas, out of rocks to throw, and many will soon be out of a job. The flop sweat has become obvious, but they stagger onward because they have no fallback plan.
All of this was fairly easy to foresee: The Russian collusion narrative collapsed like a failed souffle during the Mueller hearings, and Trump kneecapped this one before it began when he unexpectedly released the transcript of his call to Zelensky. The Dems never saw either one coming.
The fact that the Ukraine story has cast unwelcome light on Slow Joe's corruption tops it off with delicious irony. Surely, many of them had to have some inkling of where that stinking pile was, but they didn't have the brains to step around it.
I think it's safe to assume that none of them have ever learned to play chess.
Rubin, a self-professed conservative, is anything but.
She’s a neocon who has been a cancer on conservatism. Why the people who gave us Bush, the Iraq War, and the 2008 McCain candidacy are taken seriously is beyond me.
"to phrase it like Jennifer Rubin"
Who dat?
Yeah, yeah, we know.
Anyway, one of these days Althouse will dispense with the avoidance strategy and defense mechanism of fisking fools, when she acknowledges that "what happens" is anyone to her left going batshit crazy. At that point, she will have to take an actual position: abortion or the future of the country?
So 3 and 4 are just the same thing. I guess she needed to fill our her word count. I heard someone else bring this up yesterday. I actually hope they do it. I won't explain why, because if they can't see the flaw in that strategy; I'm not going to point it out.
Under current Senate rules, I don't think that they can do a trial until they've been notified by the House: "Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the
House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their
part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are
directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the
Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of
Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the
managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of
impeachment, agreeably to such notice."
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-99sdoc33/html/CDOC-99sdoc33.htm
The idea the corrupt democratic party cares at all about The Constitution - is laughable.
True. But to be fair, almost nobody in power cares about the Constitution. It, like the deficit, is primarily used as a cudgel by one side against the opposition.
The only person the WaPo could represent as their conservative spokesperson is one with a bottomless well of contempt for Trump and his supporters. She will never forgive them for stealing her party from her.
The public be damned. They had a sweet deal inside the beltway, based on endless war and grace in political defeat - now Trump has ruined it in service to those flyover folks out there.
Of course people have hinges! Jawbones, elbows, knees, all are hinged.
Omarosa - wow.That drama is less than two years ago?? It seems like decades old news.Time moves so, so, so much faster in Trump world.
When I see the name Rubin, I hear it in my head the same way that Seinfeld said Newman.
Here’s how to do #4. First, set up the House rules so that there is one vote on the impeachment and the other on sending it to the Senate. Then, vote through the impeachment and table the sending it to the Senate. Further, make the Republicans in the House vote for the tabing of the impeachment. They’ll have to, won’t they?
The country gets what it wants right now, an impeachment without removal. Then they can pursue the subpoenas the President refuses to honor in court. A July trial, after the Democratic primaries and the end of the Supreme Court term, would be more convenient timing.
Ian Bassin
Verified account @ianbassin
There’s a growing view that unless McConnell agrees to hold a fair trial, the House should vote to impeach but not send the articles to the Senate. If the Senate won’t do its job honestly, they shouldn’t be allowed to do it dishonestly.
____________
Laurence Tribe
Verified account @tribelaw
Laurence Tribe Retweeted Ian Bassin
That’s my point exactly: Vote for the Articles of Impeachment in the House, then hold them like a Sword of Damocles over Trump and McConnell until he agrees to abide by his oath and hold a fair trial in the Senate, not a Trumpian whitewash. @ianbassin & @JRubinBlogger are right.
Not. Insane.
The more interesting question for me is: what motivates Jennifer Rubin to write such nonsense? A steady paycheck? Leftist ideology? Blackmail?
The Democrats were for a sham process before they were against it.
Summary judgment is the smart play. Will it be hard for you people to swallow given it was Lindsey's idea?
Former Nixon whistleblower, John Dean, rightfully suggests in a tweet:
“Let’s impeach [Trump] now and NOT send it to the Senate rather keep investigating in the House, and add such supplemental [impeachment] articles as needed! Just let it hang over his head. If the worst happens and he is reelected, send it to the Senate. But keep investigating!!”
In other words, let McConnell know that the articles of impeachment will stay with Nancy Pelosi until the Senate majority leader - but more likely, the president himself - permits a real trial with witnesses and documents the White House has been withholding.
Why should the House control the Senate?
Beacuse the House is controlled by The Good Guys (tm), whilst the Senate is controlled by bigots, transphobes and lousy dancers.
Omarosa - wow.That drama is less than two years ago?? It seems like decades old news.Time moves so, so, so much faster in Trump world.
Feiler Faster Thesis
A couple more things.
A lot of Republicans got ready pissed at how blatantly Schifty and Wadler cheated. The Republicans, the Dems from swing or Trump districts, and the American people were promised some due recess for the President and the Republicans, when Schifty was to throw the investigation over the fence to Wadler and his Judiciary Committee, before any votes were taken. Nope. These Dem Representatives are like Charlie Brown and the football, with Schifty and Wadler playing the Lucy role. Or that scene in Animal House where trust is explained to Flounder. Senate Minority Leader Scheamer has put forward some ideas that could put pressure Republicans, and hopefully for the Dems, allow them to Kavenaugh the Senate hearings, by continuing to discover additional important witnesses and evidence. Majority leader McConnel has responded “not on my watch”. I don’t think that Romney not Mikowski can politically afford their constituents being able to blame them if this coming year filled with impeachment nonsense.
Also, Impeachment Article II claims unfettered power by the House over the Executive in terms of their assertion of Executive Privilege by merely intoning one word “impeachment”. The President has taken the position that the courts are the ones whose job it is to settle Separation of Power issues. The Supreme Court has agreed to decide three cases decided adversely by Obama appointed lower court judges. One of those involves the House purporting to override Executive Privilege by intoning “Impeachment”. Give that siding with the President would increase the power of the Judiciary, I expect that the Republican majority Supreme Court will side with the President, more likely than not. The longer the Dems delay the Senate considering and then rejecting the Their Impeachment, the more likely that the Supreme Court will side with Trump effectively mooting their impeachment Article II. And effective mootness is a great justification for the Senate to summarily dismiss this Article of Impeachment, essentially leaving the Dems trying to explain why they are trying to override and oversee the President-plenary power of conducting foreign policy. They might have been able to make a case for Article I, except that their factual case was built on lies and almost complete control of witnesses by Schifty in his basement star chamber hearings. They need their Contempt of Congress Article II in order to distract from the process they used to create their Abuse of Power Article I (and that it was they, and not the President, abusing power). Longer they can delay the Senate hearings, the higher the probability Article II will be effectively mooted.
rehajm said...
I'm probably the only one left who believes they may not vote, or they may invent a simulated vote and impeachment to avoid the Senate and as cover for continuing investigation and leaking to the press.
12/16/19, 7:19 AM
Tabling the impeachment thing fits my profile...
The Establishment has made the classic crying wolf blunder. By spending the last three years trying to turn every Trump utterance and tweet into a scandal of world-historical proportions has simply made people numb to the entire thing. Neither the pro-Trump nor anti-Trump camps are likely to attract many converts at this point. When you turn everything up to an 11, the noise simply becomes the new baseline for normal, and people adjust by tuning it out.
If Dems don't get their way the outcome and the process that determined it are illegitimate.
Like the election.
It's a win/win if your goal is to undermine the political system you want to replace.
As far as I'm concerned the trial already happened in the House, and the judges refused to allow the defendant to present any evidence in his defense.
Now it goes to the jury, and the prosecutors want them to conduct another trial on their behalf.
Apparently the Dems are jealous that the GOPe is hogging the ‘stupid party’ label.
J. Farmer points out, that...
The Establishment has made the classic crying wolf blunder.
let's assume, for the sake of argument; that Tomorrow, President Trump gets possessed by the devil, and becomes LITERALLY WORSE THAN HITLER
He suspends ALL civil liberties, and starts executing opponents, and sending their constituents to death camps.
WHAT? WHAT? WHAT would the democrats and the media (And Our Poor Chuck) say about THAT?
"Oh! THIS TIME we REALLY REALLY MEAN IT!!! He's Worse Than Hitler!!
Can we impeach the real frauds? Impeach the real congressional frauds who obstruct justice, and abuse power?
That would be Schitt and his followers.
J. Farmer said...
True. But to be fair, almost nobody in power cares about the Constitution. It, like the deficit, is primarily used as a cudgel by one side against the opposition.
Exactly! This is precisely how government works these days - it does not seem to me that anyone is really interested in solving anything - all that would do is make that issue unavailable to beat their opponent over the head with. Republicans and Democrats both love big deficits, trade wars, endless military engagements, and abortion - how else would they be able to attack one another?
Browndog at 8:34 AM
... the trial already happened in the House, and ... Now it goes to the jury
That's an excellent perspective.
“The country gets what it wants right now, an impeachment without removal. Then they can pursue the subpoenas the President refuses to honor in court. A July trial, after the Democratic primaries and the end of the Supreme Court term, would be more convenient timing.”
Leftist wishful thinking. Country doesn’t want an impeachment. The crazies on the left of the Dem party do. This is losing them votes, according to most polls. The Supreme Court, with a Republican majority, and a sickly RBG, isn’t going to give the Democrats what you want. Which means that those subpoenas will be dead, and Article II will be effectively moot by then.
Meanwhile Trump is pumping up crowds reminding them how unfair the impeachment process was in the House. And the Dem nominee for President is put in a box, unable to effectively support these theories of impeachment, and esp the unlimited power to override Executive Privilege by merely intoning the word “impeachment”, knowing that they would be almost immediately impeached if elected President, and the Republicans ever retaking the House (which the current impeachment makes ever more likely), but under extreme pressure to do so.
"Never send the impeachment to the Senate."
Hold it until the dems have a Senate majority.
Blogger jaydub said...
"If we're going to stick with the Soviet style process shouldn't we just skip the trial and go straight to the execution?"
The Democrats regret the fact that they were denied the opportunity to interrogate Trump in their secret basement star chamber, also known as "Room 101".
Rubin layers some BS legal crap over the top of what the Democrats have already promised.
The corrupt democrat party already promised endless impeachment Schitt-show. WE heard YOU creeps the first time. We already know the left's vile plans.
"We must Impeach the President because he might be re-elected"
-Al Green(D)
She’s a fucking retard.
It sounds like the House could delay sending articles to the Senate.
It also sounds like the Senate can also explain that if articles are not forwarded, immediately, Republicans are united in declaring summary judgement and acquit President Trump whenever they do arrive. Politics served by the House, will be volleyed back, post haste.
Procedure, due process, facts, and fairness, have been absent to this point, why should the Senate start, that which the House refuses to exercise?
If the House can sit on the articles for an extended period of time then the Senate can do the same.
I lost interest in this when I read the transcript of the Zelensky call. Everything since has been political theater. I had a friend who is a center right law professor bending my ear about the legal deficiencies of impeachment articles 1 and 2. I listened politely, but I wanted to cut him off with "This is political. Legalities don't matter. This is political."
The question is, how do we use this fiasco to smash the Democrats? Can we have a serious legal discussion about a purely political campaign move? Should we?
If you are going to take Vienna, take Vienna.
Maybe it was here that I read: “Going behind a paywall to read Jen Rubin is like paying a fee to climb in a dumpster.”
Maybe Sen. Graham is right. A trial is not warranted. Perhaps a “somber” but damning statement from Senate Repub leadership, a la Pelosi, about the sad day when Dems abused the process for political purposes complete with evidence of Dem impeachment blather beginning with the Inauguration and including documentation refuting the Ukraine nonsense.
As I said in another thread, all that should be released to friendly media well in advance of any announcement and referral of the leakers to DOJ for prosecution should follow.
The media and Democrats may need another political sideshow. The country does not. The country needs grownups in the Senate.
...the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments." But are they required to?
"Go as far as you can!!!"
That explains it all, becuase that's the driving idea behind the progressive left who now owns the Democratic party lock, stock and malarkey, and they all own the ruin they cannot resist bringing.
If the last couple years don't fully inform you that the left has no bounds, and no principles, then you will forever be fooled by them, becuase they are not even trying to hide it. That's what happens when journalism dies.
Tabling impeachment sounds like a good idea ala the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. invoke the Biden rule again and let the people decide in 2020.
A sham trial should be avoided by the Senate voting immediately not to convict Trump. They know all the sham evidence, they heard all the sham testimony of Dems who heard it from a Dem who heard it from a Dem, etc.
So, the current thinking by the left is that what's happened up till now wasn't enough of a farce? They should vote for impeachment and then refuse to send it to the Senate? Do these people think about more than 5 seconds into the future what the results of their actions will be? I guess I'm expecting a lot, but you'd think the party of unintended consequences would occasionally think more than one step ahead.
can McConnell come up with Kobayashi solution?
Mine is to just Remand back to House with comments (editorial, constitutional, statesmanly)
McConnell should announce:
"Although we know we would never get the same consideration from our colleagues across the aisle, we wish to spare them the embarrassment and injury that would surely come from an honest and open trial calling witnesses of our choosing rather than theirs as has been done so far. The evidence presented by the Democrats' show trial still shows no crime committed by the President. Although a trial in the Senate would likely incriminate a number of high level people while continuing to exonerate the President, we feel it's time to move one and do what we were elected to do and leave the trials to the justice department and judicial branch where they belong. We have our own work to do."
"I lost interest in this when I read the transcript of the Zelensky call."
Eventually they're going to find that the call was yet another setup to get him to say "Biden" to a foreign leader.
Rubin is horrid person. Why does she even have a job as a "journalist"? She's simply an activist. She should run for office.
Rubin is an idiot, a complete idiot.
Ann, as a retired law professor you may be interested in reading Alan Dershowitz' analysis that the Supreme Court cut the legs out from the second impeachment article:
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/474710-supreme-court-ruling-pulls-rug-out-from-under-article-of-impeachment
"...the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments." But are they required to?"
The rules I linked above seem to indicate that once notified, the Senate's required to take up the matter.
I'm seeing summaries of House rules, but not the rules themselves. Question: if they don't notify the Senate, is it an impeachment?
The Republicans and Trump have the winning hand. The chances that Trump is going to be removed from office are miniscule. Impeachments are unpopular and the last impeachment really backfired on the Republicans. Incumbents have a lot of advantages in elections. We're just talking about how they can win the most.
For the same reason, the Democrats have a losing hand. The chances of them winning - Trump removed from office and a Democrat elected president - are small. They're trying to find a way to cut their losses.
Maybe the best move for the Dems is to avoid impeaching Trump, then use whatever the reasons for impeachment are as a political talking point in the election.
Then they can pursue the subpoenas the President refuses to honor in court.
The point of the inquiry was to create subpoenas that wouldn't be honored because they were open ended requests for information not constrained to a named law that was broken, and now that the House, by issuing articles of impeachment which (they say) define laws broken, could issue a worthy subpoena, they won't do it. They won't even call witnesses now yet want to demand witnesses later.
You may not see how your being played, but others aren't so gullible.
That’s my point exactly: Vote for the Articles of Impeachment in the House, then hold them like a Sword of Damocles over Trump and McConnell until he agrees to abide by his oath and hold a fair trial in the Senate, not a Trumpian whitewash. @ianbassin & @JRubinBlogger are right.
This is about the Supreme Court and RBG who is hanging by a thread. The Dims might try this tactic and then say Trump cannot appoint an RBG replacement. It would be interesting. Also, I suspect that Manchin and possibly Sinema would vote to acquit so the totals should be adjusted. Remember it takes 51 for witnesses but 2/3 for removal.
Oh, you do have to be careful. This is politics and there are winners and losers.
Schumer's threat is to open the door to call new witnesses. Once that door is open there will be CBF-type witnesses called to sully Trump. They want a replay of the Kavanaugh hearing.
Graham and McConnell seem to be aware of this strategy. Schumer will replay Kavanaugh if the Republicans call Biden, Schiff and Ciamarella to the stand. That seems to be why Graham is pushing the outright dismissal of House charges.
This whole fiasco is a test of courage for Republicans because the Democrats have absolutely no moral compass. They will lie, cheat and steal because by all means necessary the leftist agenda will move forward.
What if the full House doesn't vote to impeach? Dem Reps claim the articles aren't sufficient on their face and vote against impeachment. It solves the Dem problem of the lack of support the public is demonstrating and gives them an opportunity to claim the high ground. The Dems can claim that even tho they still believe Trump is bad and should be impeached, the articles just aren't enough for such a momentous act. Then promise to keep investigating Trump. Makes their base lunatics happy and at the same time gives them room to back away from an actual impeachment.
this Jennifer Rubin, star of Permanent Record and Tarrantino spoof Plump Fiction is my preferred Jennifer Rubin.
Perhaps the Senate Repubs should enter the transcript of the Zelensky call, a reproduction of Zelensky’s denial that he was pressured, the documented White House explanation of the delay in sending funds to Ukraine (which had nothing to do with “quid pro quo”), the Biden extortion tape, documentation of the Hunter/Burisma payoffs and the fired prosecutor’s documentation of the pending Burisma investigation.
The first three refute wrongdoing by Trump. The latter three create probable cause to believe that Biden extorted the firing of the prosecutor for financial or political gain - corruption that needs investigating. The Dems in the Senate should be invite to submit, in writing, the names of any persons who can provide DIRECT evidence to refute those claims together with a summary of the evidence.
Why bother with the House Democrats? They are crooked swamp rats.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jsolomonReports/status/1206936268267020288
The tweets from Tribe et al urging the House to not actually “send” the articles is the most interesting thing here. How does such a bizarre and foolish idea gain traction?
First, how do you not “send” them? If you pass articles of impeachment why is more required? And if more is required who has that power and how can you justify it? Isn’t holding up “sending” an abuse in itself? What if a Nixon sympathizer had promised to hold up any?
Second, why are law professors urging us to view indictments as stains? Isn’t the logical extension for prosecutors to “stain” the people Tribe disapproves of.
"We'd like to do for you now a tune entitled Shama Lama Ding Dong...
"So hit it."
I think the Democrats made a mistake going after John Solomon.
Cocaine Mitch to Chuck Cheese.
F U
I love how this just proves what a complete joke the whole impeachment is. The Democrats want the impeachment to hang over Trump until November 2020. In other words, they want to gain a partisan advantage in the 2020 election. They're hoping they can just hold onto the articles of impeachment and only turn them over if they have a Senate majority in 2021. The idea being, if Trump is reelected they'll just try to remove him from office using the 2019 impeachment. Unbelievable. Remind me again who's abusing their constitutional powers to affect our elections?
What the House Democrats are doing and attempting to do is way worse than anything they accuse Trump of doing.
Well actually that dossier "compiled after meetings with her debate team" was not the only dossier that Hillary had. She'd bought and paid for one through Steele and Fusion.
But what the heck, if Trump can be called "Donny Two Scoops" because he got more ice cream, than the Hildebeest can be called "Hillary Two Dossiers". One should be fair after all.
They're hoping they can just hold onto the articles of impeachment and only turn them over if they have a Senate majority in 2021. The idea being, if Trump is reelected they'll just try to remove him from office using the 2019 impeachment.
--------
Which begs the question: Do articles of Impeachment expire at the end of the House session, like all other legislation, if it's not forwarded to the Senate or not acted on by the Senate?
Withholding the articles at this point probably makes some sense. It saves those red district Democrats from having to cast a final impeachment vote and it allows Democrats to claim a pyrrhic victory and move on from a losing issue. In the end, however, I don't think they can sell this to their lunatic base. After spending so much political capital rushing up that steep cliff, I doubt they can stop momentum from taking them over the edge.
Chuck's "Bulwark" editor is now part of the Democrats' strategy team./
In a piece for his website, The Bulwark Editor-in-Chief Charles Sykes spells out the strategy that more Democrats and their supporters are beginning to embrace: Accuse Republicans of intending to “violate their impeachment-trial oaths” and refuse to send over the articles so the Democrats can maintain some “leverage” over Republicans.
The mask is off.
The most startling thing about the article is that Jen Rubin had 5 ideas. After reading through I see that was a bridge too far.
Don Surber suggests:
I am not a lawyer but I offer my solution which would be amenable to both those wanting a quick impeachment acquittal and those who want to rub Democrat noses in the Schiff they just dumped on the Constitution.
On January 3, 2020, when the trial likely will begin, President Donald John Trump's legal staff should ask for 60 days to prepare their defense. This would move the trial back to March 3, and it would allow the Senate to conduct its regular business.
Certainly the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would grant our beloved president the basic rights afforded common criminals and other Democrats.
Along with the the 60-day delay, President Trump's defense team would get access to all tapes and copies of all transcripts of witnesses who appeared before the House Intelligence Committee. There would be no redactions for security reasons because as commander-in-chief, the president is our national security.
They would have to be turned over along with any and all exculpatory evidence.
https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2019/12/discovery-would-make-impeachment-hurt.html
Chuck's "Bulwark" editor is now part of the Democrats' strategy team.
It's so obvious that it's funny. Sykes, Rubin, Tribe, etc are all on some Journolist type chat room or whatever that's being used to get this "Put Impeachment on Hold" strategy out there to gauge public reaction.
The Senate trial is going to be all about the Senate Republicans controlling Trump. A "quid pro quo", if you will.
This is what we want and this is what you'll do so we can keep our gravy train rolling. Otherwise, you're out of here. Sad.
So what if the Democrats put impeachment on hold and then then RBG leaves the Supreme Court? Do they send their articles to the Senate 20 minutes later? That could be a bad look.
why are law professors urging us to view indictments as stains?
Good question.
The best of both worlds:
The Senate reads the House articles of impeachment and Mitch immediately calls for a vote to remove or acquit. The Senate votes to acquit.
Mitch then assigns the Senate judiciary committee the task of investigating Burisma and Ukraine-U.S. relations. They can then subpoena Hunter Biden and his cronies. Oh, and Joe Biden.
Hoist by their own petard? Buggered by the bear? Fucked by the fickle finger of fate?
Does anybody really believe that the timing of Rudy Giuliani's return from Ukraine with claims of billions of dollars of money laundering and bribery is an accident? The impeachment charges are all about Ukraine. The Republican controlled Senate limits prosecution witnesses to those already heard by the house and limited to depositions and transcripts. Senator Graham has Giuliani testify before his Judiciary Committee for five hours in prime time the day before the trial begins.
It's a trap. It's a TRAP I tell you! It's a motherf...
"Chuck's "Bulwark" editor is now part of the Democrats' strategy team.
It's so obvious that it's funny. Sykes, Rubin, Tribe, etc are all on some Journolist type chat room or whatever that's being used to get this "Put Impeachment on Hold" strategy out there to gauge public reaction."
Here's the full process:
Focus group --> trial balloon in the media --> opinion poll --> spin
The Senate needs to STOP the House from pulling this crap in the future. We have a Sham partisan impeachment, with all the R's voting against and almost all the D' voting for. President's should not be impeached on 52-48 percent House Votes.
So, McConnell needs to STOP this sham in its tracks and NOT take it seriously. Just vote it down ASAP.
As for Rubin, how many times does she have to support Liberals and Democrats before boobs stop calling her "Conservative". Just because you call yourself one, doesn't make you a Neo_Conservative or ANY kind of Conservative.
She was HIRED by the liberal WaPo to be their Fake Conservative.
BTW, where is George Bush in all this? He had no problem attacking Trump for "Babies at the Border" or not being an internationalist. So why isn't he out there attacking this sham impeachment which will hamper ALL future President's? This isn't just an attack on Trump, its an attack on the Presidency.
David French and the Bulwark Boys are now full on Democrat and liberals. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its a duck.
The idea the corrupt democratic party cares at all about The Constitution - is laughable.
True. But to be fair, almost nobody in power cares about the Constitution. It, like the deficit, is primarily used as a cudgel by one side against the opposition.
@Farmer, that was kind of the point of the Constitution in the first place.
Perhaps Jen Rubin can explain what the difference is between ideas #3 and #4, and a vote of censure? Calling the vote an "impeachment" but not taking the steps to initiate Senate action makes makes it not an impeachment, right?
As Lincoln said, calling a dog's tail a "leg" does not make it a leg.
To step back a bit - this is not how people act when they have a winning hand. They’re scrambling for excuses and blame throwing.
Here is what Nadler said about impeachment in 1999:
"There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other,”
“Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions,"
-Jerry Nadler 1999
“Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions
Probably the only thing that Nadless has ever been right about.
The constitution expressly states what are impeachable offenses, and neither of these articles concerns any of those offenses. They should offer a motion to dismiss on this basis.
Strange, the way Jerry Wadler has been blathering it's as if he thinks this would not surface
You want to know how unhinged the Democrats are? The proof is this idea that the House can pass the impeachment articles, but not send it to the Senate for a trial. This is literally campaign fodder for Trump. Playing idiotic games like this is the epitomy of unseriousness, and it why people turned against impeachment in the first place. This would just be doubling down on stupid, and it wouldn't even tie the hands of the Senate anyway, but would almost certainly result in a resolution of acquittal that says they don't have to send it over- they can just stick up their ass.
This is is the first rule of getting out of a hole you have dug- stop digging.
Unless the hole is a tunnel, then keep digging
If the hole is a tunnel, unless you're exceedingly careful with your supports — not to speak of your air supply — it's all too likely to collapse, or simply suffocate you.
Unless the hole is a tunnel, then keep digging
No, you go back the way you came in; but, yeah, keep digging, Howard.
I still think Nixon shoulda fought the impeachment. The problem was that in addition to pissing off the Left, he also pissed off the hard right. They didn't like or trust Kissinger, they didn't like his secret outreaches to China, and they didn't like his withdrawal from Vietnam.
Recall, in Nov 1972, Nixon won a massive 49-state landslide - after the Watergate burglary. He had a lotta reservoir of political goodwill. But he had no answer for the media or the lawfare tactics of the Dems or the CIA payback for firing Director Helms.
This is my two cents. Could be wrong.
Put the Impeachment articles in a box with Schrödinger's cat.
The problem was that in addition to pissing off the Left, he also pissed off the hard right. They didn't like or trust Kissinger, they didn't like his secret outreaches to China, and they didn't like his withdrawal from Vietnam.
That's a very good point. Pat Buchanan wrote he was nauseated to be in the Great Hall in China. Nixon never understood the it was the right that saved his career. He campaigned for Goldwater when most of the GOPe wing ridiculed him. Then he hired a bunch of lefties in his administration. Buchanan was isolated. Not so much on Vietnam, which Nixon could not avoid, but domestic stuff like OEO and HUD and EPA.
yes, indeed, I think his time with mudge rose, dulled his instincts, whereas trump is the opposite, coming from that east coast urban milieu, he found his success in the heartland, same with boris, whose a bit of a bounder, but he became the champion of the midlands,
The Senate should follow precedent and deem impeachment to be submitted.
It gives me a certain dark amusement to see the meme develop that (Republican) senators who have already announced how they will vote on impeachment must recuse themselves. "You haven't even seen the evidence!!!1!!!" This after strict partisan behavior and voting in two House committees. Please.
"Vote for impeachment and then not send it to the Senate"
How is this a threat?
If you don't agree to do what we ask in the way we want, we won't ask.
"Vote for impeachment and then not send it to the Senate"
Article 1, Section 2: "The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
Article 1, Section 3: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."
The House of Representatives does not have the constitutional authority to dictate how an impeachment shall be tried. Moreover, an argument could be made that once the House votes to impeach, it is fait accompli.
I just don't understand hoe the senate can acknowledge this tainted house vote of impeachment,from denying the potus due process,to adam Schiff controlling what was said during witness testimony.the whole thing should be immediately dismissed,it shouldn't just be passed along to the senate like it was legitimate.rules have been broken,its mconnells duty to dimiss it,if he doesn't,americans should be worried.because it will mean the status quo of due process will be broken. Pelosi has taken rule bending to a new level.
Post a Comment