Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know - if Pelosi does take a vote for impeachment and it goes to the Senate, it will be interesting to see what a long, protracted trial will do to the campaigns of those in the Senate running for president. They cannot possibly actively participate in the trial AND campaign at the same time. Especially if the trial runs 6 days a week as McConnell has signaled it willl.

Unlike the depositions, everything in the trial will be public.

And before there is a Senate trail, there will be House open hearings.

Rally, the whole "process" thing from the right is just deflection since they cannot defend the President on this. The longer this takes, the worse it is for the GOP.

Go listen to Steve Bannon's new podcast. He keeps hammering home that the "process" is so important - the GOP is not appreciating this and they need to get an upper hand on the "process" aspect. That's why they are staging these stunts and complaining: the GOP freaks out when it does not have control.

I agree with Bannon that the "process" argument is really the GOP's only strategy right now. They don't have control, so they can't do anything except pull antics and make disingenuous arguments on TV.

Nancy Pelosi needs to weigh this carefully. Once impeachment is handed off to the Senate, the Democrats will no longer control the process and will be ceding power back to the GOP.

I'm still not clear on this point. Doesn't the Chief Justice run the show once it goes to the Senate? I don't think that's giving power back tot he GOP. I think it's just taking the evidence to trial. I'm assuming the Chief Justice has red, understands, and will follow the constitution.

The Chief Justice runs the trial. But the Senate still decides on the rules of the trial. The Democrats are a minority party in the Senate and will be pretty much powerless to stop Republicans from pulling shenanigans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know - if Pelosi does take a vote for impeachment and it goes to the Senate, it will be interesting to see what a long, protracted trial will do to the campaigns of those in the Senate running for president. They cannot possibly actively participate in the trial AND campaign at the same time. Especially if the trial runs 6 days a week as McConnell has signaled it willl.

Unlike the depositions, everything in the trial will be public.

And before there is a Senate trail, there will be House open hearings.

Rally, the whole "process" thing from the right is just deflection since they cannot defend the President on this. The longer this takes, the worse it is for the GOP.

Go listen to Steve Bannon's new podcast. He keeps hammering home that the "process" is so important - the GOP is not appreciating this and they need to get an upper hand on the "process" aspect. That's why they are staging these stunts and complaining: the GOP freaks out when it does not have control.

I agree with Bannon that the "process" argument is really the GOP's only strategy right now. They don't have control, so they can't do anything except pull antics and make disingenuous arguments on TV.

Nancy Pelosi needs to weigh this carefully. Once impeachment is handed off to the Senate, the Democrats will no longer control the process and will be ceding power back to the GOP.

I'm still not clear on this point. Doesn't the Chief Justice run the show once it goes to the Senate? I don't think that's giving power back tot he GOP. I think it's just taking the evidence to trial. I'm assuming the Chief Justice has red, understands, and will follow the constitution.

The Chief Justice runs the trial. But the Senate still decides on the rules of the trial. The Democrats are a minority party in the Senate and will be pretty much powerless to stop Republicans from pulling shenanigans.

Constitution says the CJ “presides over” the trial. Does anyone know what that meant in practice last time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The Chief Justice runs the trial. But the Senate still decides on the rules of the trial. The Democrats are a minority party in the Senate and will be pretty much powerless to stop Republicans from pulling shenanigans.

Given the House will have had a public show of hearings and articles of impeachment proceedings, the American public will be well versed in the facts of the case. If the GOP wants to pull shenanigans at that point, it will be exposed for all the world, and 2020 voters, to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know - if Pelosi does take a vote for impeachment and it goes to the Senate, it will be interesting to see what a long, protracted trial will do to the campaigns of those in the Senate running for president. They cannot possibly actively participate in the trial AND campaign at the same time. Especially if the trial runs 6 days a week as McConnell has signaled it willl.

Unlike the depositions, everything in the trial will be public.

And before there is a Senate trail, there will be House open hearings.

Rally, the whole "process" thing from the right is just deflection since they cannot defend the President on this. The longer this takes, the worse it is for the GOP.

Go listen to Steve Bannon's new podcast. He keeps hammering home that the "process" is so important - the GOP is not appreciating this and they need to get an upper hand on the "process" aspect. That's why they are staging these stunts and complaining: the GOP freaks out when it does not have control.

I agree with Bannon that the "process" argument is really the GOP's only strategy right now. They don't have control, so they can't do anything except pull antics and make disingenuous arguments on TV.

Nancy Pelosi needs to weigh this carefully. Once impeachment is handed off to the Senate, the Democrats will no longer control the process and will be ceding power back to the GOP.

I'm still not clear on this point. Doesn't the Chief Justice run the show once it goes to the Senate? I don't think that's giving power back tot he GOP. I think it's just taking the evidence to trial. I'm assuming the Chief Justice has red, understands, and will follow the constitution.

The Chief Justice runs the trial. But the Senate still decides on the rules of the trial. The Democrats are a minority party in the Senate and will be pretty much powerless to stop Republicans from pulling shenanigans.

Constitution says the CJ “presides over” the trial. Does anyone know what that meant in practice last time?

Basically that the Chief Justice applies the Senate rules for impeachment the way a regular court judge would apply procedural rules in a courtroom. He can be overruled by a majority of the Senate, but McConnell has hinted he doesn't plan on allowing that.

[Anonymous]

Here's the Senate rules on impeachment:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf

Plenty of opportunities for McConnell to run this however he likes. They could also amend the rules prior to the beginning of the trial. The CJ just applies the rules.

[Anonymous]

And here's an informative plain English description of how impeachment and the trial unfolds by the Congressional Research Service:

https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-806.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Coming attractions:

Depositions scheduled for next week —
Charles Kupperman, former deputy assistant for national security affairs, Monday 10/28
Timothy Morrison, special assistant to POTUS and senior director to Europe and Russia at National Security Council, Thursday 10/31

President Trump has ordered a key impeachment witness, Charles Kupperman, not to testify.

Now Kupperman is asking a court whether he has to honor a House subpoena, a case that could slow -- and even upend --the impeachment proceedings.
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/10/25/charles-kupperman-bolton-impeachment-058254?__twitter_impression=true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming attractions:

Depositions scheduled for next week —
Charles Kupperman, former deputy assistant for national security affairs, Monday 10/28
Timothy Morrison, special assistant to POTUS and senior director to Europe and Russia at National Security Council, Thursday 10/31

President Trump has ordered a key impeachment witness, Charles Kupperman, not to testify.

Now Kupperman is asking a court whether he has to honor a House subpoena, a case that could slow -- and even upend --the impeachment proceedings.
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/10/25/charles-kupperman-bolton-impeachment-058254?__twitter_impression=true

Whoops hit submit too soon. Also this gem — “Kupperman is wondering if the House's impeachment inquiry is valid -- but his request comes just as another judge in the same federal district has ruled resoundingly that it is.” — referring to Beryl Howell’s opinion on the decision in favor of the House today re the Mueller grand jury materials. Hee!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming attractions:

Depositions scheduled for next week —
Charles Kupperman, former deputy assistant for national security affairs, Monday 10/28
Timothy Morrison, special assistant to POTUS and senior director to Europe and Russia at National Security Council, Thursday 10/31

President Trump has ordered a key impeachment witness, Charles Kupperman, not to testify.

Now Kupperman is asking a court whether he has to honor a House subpoena, a case that could slow -- and even upend --the impeachment proceedings.
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/10/25/charles-kupperman-bolton-impeachment-058254?__twitter_impression=true

LOL It won’t upend the proceedings. Fiona Hill has already told what happened. There isn’t executive privilege for extortion and of course the House can subpoena him when they are investigating a rogue conspiracy outside official State Department protocols.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming attractions:

Depositions scheduled for next week —
Charles Kupperman, former deputy assistant for national security affairs, Monday 10/28
Timothy Morrison, special assistant to POTUS and senior director to Europe and Russia at National Security Council, Thursday 10/31

President Trump has ordered a key impeachment witness, Charles Kupperman, not to testify.

Now Kupperman is asking a court whether he has to honor a House subpoena, a case that could slow -- and even upend --the impeachment proceedings.
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/10/25/charles-kupperman-bolton-impeachment-058254?__twitter_impression=true

LOL It won’t upend the proceedings. Fiona Hill has already told what happened. There isn’t executive privilege for extortion and of course the House can subpoena him when they are investigating a rogue conspiracy outside official State Department protocols.

Kupperman did the House a huge favor. There is no real legal argument against the Congressional subpoenas. Now the court will affirm that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming attractions:

Depositions scheduled for next week —
Charles Kupperman, former deputy assistant for national security affairs, Monday 10/28
Timothy Morrison, special assistant to POTUS and senior director to Europe and Russia at National Security Council, Thursday 10/31

President Trump has ordered a key impeachment witness, Charles Kupperman, not to testify.

Now Kupperman is asking a court whether he has to honor a House subpoena, a case that could slow -- and even upend --the impeachment proceedings.
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/10/25/charles-kupperman-bolton-impeachment-058254?__twitter_impression=true

LOL It won’t upend the proceedings. Fiona Hill has already told what happened. There isn’t executive privilege for extortion and of course the House can subpoena him when they are investigating a rogue conspiracy outside official State Department protocols.

Kupperman did the House a huge favor. There is no real legal argument against the Congressional subpoenas. Now the court will affirm that.

Agree, but how long will that take?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming attractions:

Depositions scheduled for next week —
Charles Kupperman, former deputy assistant for national security affairs, Monday 10/28
Timothy Morrison, special assistant to POTUS and senior director to Europe and Russia at National Security Council, Thursday 10/31

President Trump has ordered a key impeachment witness, Charles Kupperman, not to testify.

Now Kupperman is asking a court whether he has to honor a House subpoena, a case that could slow -- and even upend --the impeachment proceedings.
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/10/25/charles-kupperman-bolton-impeachment-058254?__twitter_impression=true

LOL It won’t upend the proceedings. Fiona Hill has already told what happened. There isn’t executive privilege for extortion and of course the House can subpoena him when they are investigating a rogue conspiracy outside official State Department protocols.

Kupperman did the House a huge favor. There is no real legal argument against the Congressional subpoenas. Now the court will affirm that.

Agree, but how long will that take?

Now that the chief judge in the DC District Court has ruled that Congress is indeed conducting an impeachment inquiry, Congress can use that to get an expedited ruling.

Poor House lawyers, though - they must be working 24/7.

[Anonymous]

For those of you who didn't read the entire crs report, I think this is the paragraph that shows how McConnell can do shenanigans:

The Senate has not adopted standard rules of evidence to be used during an
impeachment trial. The Presiding Officer possesses authority to rule on all evidentiary
questions. However, the Presiding Officer may choose to put any such issue to a vote
before the Senate. Furthermore, any Senator may request that a formal vote be taken on
a particular question.33 Final arguments in the trial will be presented by each side, with
the managers for the House of Representatives opening and closing.34

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who didn't read the entire crs report, I think this is the paragraph that shows how McConnell can do shenanigans:

The Senate has not adopted standard rules of evidence to be used during an
impeachment trial. The Presiding Officer possesses authority to rule on all evidentiary
questions. However, the Presiding Officer may choose to put any such issue to a vote
before the Senate. Furthermore, any Senator may request that a formal vote be taken on
a particular question.33 Final arguments in the trial will be presented by each side, with
the managers for the House of Representatives opening and closing.34

But, when it is the President or VP on trial for Impeachment, the Constitution says the Chief Justice shall preside, so the Presiding Officer in this case will be the Roberts, not Mitch. The Senate would violate the Constitution if they took all presiding powers away from the Chief Justice by calling their own votes on everything in his purview. The only way for the bolded sentence to be constitutional is if the PO can grant or deny the "request," and of course the plain language of the rule says just that. So, while the Senate might want to ask for every little thing to be put to a vote, Roberts can say no and get on with it. It will be up to Roberts to control those kinds of partisan shenanigans, which have no place in a trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who didn't read the entire crs report, I think this is the paragraph that shows how McConnell can do shenanigans:

The Senate has not adopted standard rules of evidence to be used during an
impeachment trial. The Presiding Officer possesses authority to rule on all evidentiary
questions. However, the Presiding Officer may choose to put any such issue to a vote
before the Senate. Furthermore, any Senator may request that a formal vote be taken on
a particular question.33 Final arguments in the trial will be presented by each side, with
the managers for the House of Representatives opening and closing.34

But, when it is the President or VP on trial for Impeachment, the Constitution says the Chief Justice shall preside, so the Presiding Officer in this case will be the Roberts, not Mitch. The Senate would violate the Constitution if they took all presiding powers away from the Chief Justice by calling their own votes on everything in his purview. The only way for the bolded sentence to be constitutional is if the PO can grant or deny the "request," and of course the plain language of the rule says just that. So, while the Senate might want to ask for every little thing to be put to a vote, Roberts can say no and get on with it. It will be up to Roberts to control those kinds of partisan shenanigans, which have no place in a trial.

I wish I had faith in Roberts, but I do not.