Saying that they fouled up the process is an excuse. It's also just not true. Trials have delays all the time, of much, much longer than a couple of weeks (which is really what the delay was, the trial was never going to happen over Xmas). You also claim they should have collected more evidence by forcing the issue in the courts. Might have taken another year, but yes, then they'd have more evidence. But they don't need more evidence. They have enough already that an ordinary court would convict. The Senate won't, but the Senate wouldn't no matter how much evidence the House collected. You don't need a 'smocking gun' to convict. In a real trial, or in an impeachment trial. barfo
Saying that they fouled up the process is an excuse. It's also just not true. It's an opinion (mine), not an excuse. I've given my reasons for my opinion previously, but just to be clear, I'd say that failing to get the witnesses you want, at the point in the process where you control that process, is pretty danged stupid. Trials have delays all the time, of much, much longer than a couple of weeks (which is really what the delay was, the trial was never going to happen over Xmas). Of course they have delays, which is why there was never this huge bogus rush to vote on the articles of impeachment in the first place. You also claim they should have collected more evidence by forcing the issue in the courts. Might have taken another year, but yes, then they'd have more evidence. But they don't need more evidence. They have enough already that an ordinary court would convict. The Senate won't, but the Senate wouldn't no matter how much evidence the House collected. As I pointed out in my previous post, the legal precedent in Nixon's case is that it took well less than a month to get a ruling that his EP claims were bogus. You don't need a 'smocking gun' to convict. In a real trial, or in an impeachment trial. In a judicial trial you need sufficient evidence for a decision to be made that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." In this case, as I've said before, it all comes down to intent. Did Trump intend to use his power to get dirt on Biden for political advantage alone, or was there a reasonable decision to request an investigation to determine if a crime had been committed? I know what I believe, but when you're talking reasonable doubt, you'd better have more than belief. I'd be willing to bet that the testimony that the Dems now want so desperately might shed some light on that. Not getting it when they were in control was DUMB. Unlike a jury trial, the impeachment trial is a political process. Justice Roberts is acting simply as a referee. There is nothing that can be done from a legal standpoint to compel the Senate to vote to allow witnesses or, should they vote to do so, to require that the Senate vote to fight any claim of EP should Trump again use that argument to deny allowing witnesses to testify. It would still take the same time to resolve that matter in court.
You are incorrect on the timeline. The special prosecutor (note, we don't have one of those here, because the Justice department is corrupt) subpoenaed the records in April. The supreme court decision was announced July 24. So why not wait 3 months? Because it might be much longer this time. Nixon did not try to delay the decision, and in fact probably expedited it by suing to quash the subpoena rather than ignoring it as Trump has done. Nixon went to court, not the prosecutor. Trump would use all tactics available to delay beyond the election. Finally, note that there are numerous legal actions against the administration for withholding evidence. It just isn't true that the House has not tried the courts. For instance we just got a ruling on Don McGahn /Mueller report testimony, after many months - and it isn't even necessarily the final ruling in that case. barfo
The nihilist take is such a cop out. It's like a goth teenager in the 90s: "You just don't understand, dad! Nothing means anything!" What an easy position to take: nothing can be done so fuck it. And why participate in the discussion if it is just to say everyone is fucked and it's all fucked? Show some positivity. Join this: https://represent.us/anticorruption-act/ Do something. And I'm not being dramatic about the Republican Party. It is abundantly clear that you consider Trump just another one of "them," but Trump is like no one we've ever had in Office in my lifetime in the worst possible way, and the Titanic is the perfect analogy for the GOP, white-knuckling it and pretending reality is not reality while the ship sinks. Clearly the cover up is in, but no one being honest can't say it isn't a cover up. THAT is why the divide between us grows: I refuse to be told that water's not wet.
In Nixon's case, it was three weeks after oral arguments that the decision was issued. In an impeachment matter, it's likely that the Supreme Court would take direct jurisdiction over the EP case. Whatever the time might be in reality, the point remains that not fighting it while the issue was in the House doesn't mean that it would be any different of a timeline if it had to be fought while the matter is before the Senate. To my knowledge, there's nothing that precludes Trump from reiterating his claims of EP should the Senate vote to allow witnesses. The only thing that failing to litigate it at the House level did was to take the issue out of the control of the Democrats. Stupid.
He's a shrewd New Yorker in your face dude, that has no diplomacy. If the dems elect Bernie than I know the democratic party has lost it as well. Even Obama says he's not fit politically or physically to be president.
I believe the Mueller investigation cost like 15 million. Not Sure. However, the legal process, especially on this level, is like watching paint dry. We see the perspectives of this country is full exposure now. It's like hungry wolf packs turning on each other.
I’m not saying nothing can be salvaged. I’m saying the two political parties in this country will never be representative of the people if they are allowed to continue as they are. And the only thing unprecedented about Trump is his public displays of stupidity on social media. As far as corruption goes, he’s par for the course. There’s been better and there’s been worse. I’m not going to pretend he’s the worst ever based on some potty-mouthed tweets. Other presidents lied us into wars that killed hundreds of thousands. If your priorities are simply a case study on bad manners, then sure, call him the worst of all time if it makes you feel better. Maybe we just have different priorities.
Except that they didn't ever control getting the witnesses they wanted. The rush is that there's an election coming up, that Trump is trying to rig in his favor. We can't put Trump in solitary confinement until after the election, although that would sure solve a lot of problems. As I pointed out in my previous post, your timeline is not accurate. Well, I think your idea of what the House could have done to compel Bolton, Mick, etc. to testify is probably not very realistic. And, since the Senate would still vote to acquit, what would be the actual point of the court fight anyway? Imagine for a moment that the House did what you wanted. Now it is July, or maybe October, or maybe 2021. Now the trial begins. Every Republican senator says they don't see anything impeachable, the president did nothing wrong, and even if he did, well, boys will be boys. barfo
That's clearly incorrect, as you can see with Kupperman's case, which stalled in the low-level court of a Trump-appointee. Note that Trump has not actually claimed executive privilege. He's merely instructed people not to cooperate. barfo
Bernie is more favorable over Trump than any other Democratic candidate, according to almost every major poll. Obama is basically a moderate establishment Republican, with a clear bias against Bernie Sanders. His personal opinions have no bearing in the current race, they only serve to discredit non-establishment candidates in a dishonest way.
Impeachment trials seems 100% just political, especially this one. I wish the house would have been more receptive to allowing witness's, it just seemed they didn't want to give and take, which imo, would help the senate do so. If everyones evidence on either side is so strong and earthshaking and no more is needed either way, why the fear to give an inch? To me its 100 political regardless of what either side has. Its gotten to hat point in our society now that everything is so polarized and delicate. It wasn't that way during Clinton impeachment i don't believe as there seem to be more bi partisan agreement.
I don't think that's true, at least not according to a brief study of this. In each of the first several polls, Biden has a larger advantage than Bernie. Not sure the underlying story is even true. Obama hasn't said anything (publicly) about Bernie. barfo
“The American people” is a large group with thousands of varying opinions. There is no consensus from “The American people” as a whole. That’s a meaningless phrase.
To the original question, I've been watching as much as I can, given the demands of work, sleep, and arguing with e_blazer. It's fascinating (to me) even though we already know how it ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper. barfo
Trump never formally asserted EP, but the threat to do so was the underpinning of denying witnesses to testify before the House. Even now, Trump's legal team is contemplating using EP to block any testimony regarding Ukraine communications. https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article239499558.html There is no getting around the legal time required to decide this issue if it is formally asserted. And that's the bottom line and always has been. Absolutely the only chance of removing Trump from office would have been to find the "smocking" gun evidence that would have made it remotely possible that some of the more liberal Senators might have been convinced to vote against him. The only way to have even remotely having a chance to do that would have been to get an unassailable piece of evidence against him. Absent that, this is and always has been political theater designed to embarrass Trump and, perhaps, to increase the chances of Democrats unseating some at-risk Republican Senators. Personally, that's all I ever expected.
