It's official, Trump has been Acquitted

[Alpo]

We are in the rabbit hole, presented with a paradox.

But it seems logical that if A witnessed B performing some act, that the lawyers for B cannot argue both that A should not be allowed to testify and that there are no witnesses to B's act.

At least with OJ, he tried on the glove. If justice is going to miscarry, let's make sure we at least have a doctor in attendance. A real constitutional crisis is brewing here.

 

[jamil]

There is a presiding judge. My "sense" it that they would look to him for resolution. The rules can be changed by what appears to be a 2/3 vote.

Lawyers litter the senate chambers. Senators, their staffs and counsel for the managers. We already know that one side or the other of said lawyers is in error and may not be acting in good faith. My expectation is that Roberts will step in if necessary.

Frankly, it is difficult for the president's lawyers to argue that there are no witnesses corroborating the indictment and then fight the inclusion of witnesses. To us middle of the pack voters, it stinks.

I think they're both not acting in good faith. I think Robert's role should be calling balls and strikes. As to the question of witnesses, that's been hashed to death already, but I think that depends on the rules, and certainly I think Roberts should have the ability to call balls and strikes there too. But the Senate ultimately gets to vote on the outcome of that.

About the bold part, I think that depends on your expectations. The following seems like a reasonable explanation of the proceedings, albeit from a Canadian lawyer.

[video=youtube;sgVUVlzY8ys]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgVUVlzY8ys[/video]

It also tends to agree with Hough at least a little, so...

 

[utahskies]

I think they see the continued ability to appoint constitutionalist judges for four more years as an existential threat to the progressive long march

Nicely worded

 

[jamil]

We are in the rabbit hole, presented with a paradox.

But it seems logical that if A witnessed B performing some act, that the lawyers for B cannot argue both that A should not be allowed to testify and that there are no witnesses to B's act.

At least with OJ, he tried on the glove. If justice is going to miscarry, let's make sure we at least have a doctor in attendance. A real constitutional crisis is brewing here.

That part of the thing was supposed to have happened in the House proceedings. It also seems logical that if A says that they have enough evidence to prove that B is guilty, and so they send the case with all their findings to C to try, that there should be sufficient evidence in the case for C to come to the same conclusion without having to add evidence to prove B is guilty.

The house had the same problem before they voted on the articles of impeachment. So this latest thing is problematic for the House if this is what we're left with. They went without the Bolton testimony, not withstanding the burden to get it. But there was a mechanism available to them to get it, which they did not use. So, they either voted for impeachment when they didn't have the necessary proof, or they did have the proof and so they don't really need the additional testimony.

I'm kinda in favor of letting them have Bolton testify, but then they should let the GOP call whoever they want too, as long as it's pursuant to the defense they're making. I mean. I'd love for them to call the FISA judge up there to testify under oauth. But that has nothing to do with this case.

 

[Alpo]

It's a good video but I believe the "trial by ambush" analogy isn't a satisfactory explanation of a possible methodology for the impeachment process, that being: arraignment, indictment, pre-trial hearing and trial.

Pelosi clearly erred in not litigating subpoenas of key excluded witnesses. I think we have a pretty good understanding of why she did not and much of the current arguments rest with her decisions on this matter.

 

[jamil]

It is what it is. Either way, it's not good for an already divided country. I think if Trump gets acquitted, which seems very likely at this point, and then wins the 2020 election, it's going to be nuts. Absolutely nuts. There will be a new notch cut for highest volume on the dial.

 

[KittySlayer]

I think the senate could allow Bolton to testify and it wouldn't matter much, for reasons I've already outlined. That would thwart this particular play. And then they'd get to call some witnesses damaging to Democrats...

Bolton goes last. If they open the witness can of worms let the Dem's dig their own grave with witnesses who are disparaging to Dems appearing first.

 

[Dr.Midnight]

It is what it is. Either way, it's not good for an already divided country. I think if Trump gets acquitted, which seems very likely at this point, and then wins the 2020 election, it's going to be nuts. Absolutely nuts. There will be a new notch cut for highest volume on the dial.

November election? Sir, I'm giddy with excitement to see what the Democrats spring on us in the next couple of days.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It is what it is. Either way, it's not good for an already divided country. I think if Trump gets acquitted, which seems very likely at this point, and then wins the 2020 election, it's going to be nuts. Absolutely nuts. There will be a new notch cut for highest volume on the dial.

You don't think that after he's aquitted (and it's not an "if" prospect) and loses it won't be equally as nuts? He has a good number of supporters thinking that if he lost, it was because the election was rigged. I'm not saying if he loses he will refuse to leave office, but I image that there will be a fair bit of rhetoric coming out of the WH that will stir up some of his more unstable supporters. I mean we have people right here, on INGO, who have talked that way.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Bolton goes last. If they open the witness can of worms let the Dem's dig their own grave with witnesses who are disparaging to Dems appearing first.

If you support the president, that's a terrible idea. Though I would have no problem at all with Bolton going last, lol. Your best bet is to mix him in the middle somewhere, cause if he's last, people are most likely to remember his testimony, not to mention all other witnesses will be seen as the pre-card until the actual "show."

 

[chipbennett]

I think we've moved some goalposts here. It seemed to me that first you were arguing that what they said in the article violated separation of powers. I pointed out that it's not an issue of separation of powers if the Senate rules give the CJ that authority, which it seemed that the article under our scrutiny was asserting. Then the argument became, they're asserting that Roberts had unilateral power. And I didn't read much of the article myself, so I'm not going to dispute that it's final conclusion may have been that. But the article did link to Senate rules and claimed that the CJ was given that authority by senate rules long ago. Nevertheless, I then pointed out that the article's point rests on whether the rules say what they're saying it says, and whether those rules are applicable. So now you're arguing, yeah, but the Senate gets to say whether they followed the rules or not.

So we're in agreement that it's not a violation of separation of powers if the senate ceded that power.

The Constitution doesn't give the Senate authority to cede its power to another branch of government.

We're in agreement that the Senate has to follow the rules it passed for itself. So the only argument left, is that, well, the senate gets to say that they followed the rules regardless of what the rules actually say, because they get to interpret them however they want. And I guess I have to agree, that yes, they could vote to say that blue is red. And if they claim to be following rules that state as clearly as blue is blue and red is red, I agree that they can probably do that. But then you're left arguing that they must do something foolish, all to save the original point, that the article posted violates the separation of powers.

Close. The point is that the Senate, as a body, is the only constitutional arbiter for issues regarding whether the Senate is following its own rules. The CJ cannot arbitrate an internecine disagreement on that question.

I'm not trying to win an argument here. I'd rather we cut all that crap out and come to some rational agreement about what is true, and what isn't true. I concede that the Senate could just vote to say that whatever they're doing is following the rules regardless of what the rules say. But, if the rules clearly state that the CJ has the authority over the question of whether new witnesses can be called/subpoenaed, it would be problematic for Senate Republicans to say the rules say something else. Neither of us have law degrees, or the depth of knowledge it would likely take to know that they're obviously breaking the rules. So that much would have to be assumed to know what is "clearly defined".

If we agree on that I think we're pretty much done.

The problem with the OpEd is that the writers are suggesting that the CJ can act unilaterally based on his own interpretation of Senate rules. The underlying fault is that, in matters of presiding over a Senate impeachment trial, and in particular carrying out procedural matters as specified by the Senate rules, the CJ has no agency.

Here's how I imagine the scenario would play out:

1. House managers instruct CJ to issue a subpoena
2. Senate Majority Leader declares that instruction to be out of order
3. House managers protest, along with minority Senators
4a. Senate does not hold a vote, standing on declaration of the Majority Leader. No subpoena request made to CJ.
4b. Senate holds a vote on point of order, or question of rules, etc.
5a. Vote goes in Majority Leader's favor, by whatever majority. No subpoena request made to CJ.
5b. Vote goes against Majority Leader, by whatever majority. Subpoena request made to CJ.

In this scenario, the CJ might eventually issue subpoenas, but only at the formal request of the Senate. The CJ does not and cannot act unilaterally.

I also see lots of opportunity for political grandstanding and muckraking at 5a and 5b. By both parties.

(Note that most Senators, of either party, being collectively members of the UniParty, and having their fingers buried deep in corruption schemes including Ukraine and others, have no desire whatsoever for any actual witnesses being brought forth. There will be much grandstanding, but in the end, witnesses won't happen. I don't see any way that they open themselves up to discovery in such a manner. Of course, I could be wrong; but that's how I see it.)

 

[jamil]

You don't think that after he's aquitted (and it's not an "if" prospect) and loses it won't be equally as nuts? He has a good number of supporters thinking that if he lost, it was because the election was rigged. I'm not saying if he loses he will refuse to leave office, but I image that there will be a fair bit of rhetoric coming out of the WH that will stir up some of his more unstable supporters. I mean we have people right here, on INGO, who have talked that way.

No. Not at all the equivalent of the left. For one thing, conservatives and trump supporters have no institutional power throughout society. WTF are they gonna do? They're not gonna sit in the street and scream "NOOOOOOOOOOO!" at the top of their lungs. They're not gonna go around wearing ***** hats protesting straw monsters. They're not gonna go around larping #resistance while they punch people they think are Nazis. They don't control the press, and so they're not going to spend the duration of the next administration foaming at the mouth. They likely have jobs. They'll go to work and complain at the water cooler, if they think they won't get canceled for the dissent.

There might be a few fringe crazies. But there won't be vast mobs looking to shame everyone who disagrees with them.

 

[jamil]

The Constitution doesn't give the Senate authority to cede its power to another branch of government.



Close. The point is that the Senate, as a body, is the only constitutional arbiter for issues regarding whether the Senate is following its own rules. The CJ cannot arbitrate an internecine disagreement on that question.



The problem with the OpEd is that the writers are suggesting that the CJ can act unilaterally based on his own interpretation of Senate rules. The underlying fault is that, in matters of presiding over a Senate impeachment trial, and in particular carrying out procedural matters as specified by the Senate rules, the CJ has no agency.

Here's how I imagine the scenario would play out:

1. House managers instruct CJ to issue a subpoena
2. Senate Majority Leader declares that instruction to be out of order
3. House managers protest, along with minority Senators
4a. Senate does not hold a vote, standing on declaration of the Majority Leader. No subpoena request made to CJ.
4b. Senate holds a vote on point of order, or question of rules, etc.
5a. Vote goes in Majority Leader's favor, by whatever majority. No subpoena request made to CJ.
5b. Vote goes against Majority Leader, by whatever majority. Subpoena request made to CJ.

In this scenario, the CJ might eventually issue subpoenas, but only at the formal request of the Senate. The CJ does not and cannot act unilaterally.

I also see lots of opportunity for political grandstanding and muckraking at 5a and 5b. By both parties.

(Note that most Senators, of either party, being collectively members of the UniParty, and having their fingers buried deep in corruption schemes including Ukraine and others, have no desire whatsoever for any actual witnesses being brought forth. There will be much grandstanding, but in the end, witnesses won't happen. I don't see any way that they open themselves up to discovery in such a manner. Of course, I could be wrong; but that's how I see it.)

So you don't think the senate can assign the CJ the authority to subpoena witnesses at his own whim? The constitution says the Senate has sole authority on their part of the impeachment process. But you don't think that includes the authority to delegate some powers to whomever it wants? I disagree.

 

[Ingomike]

Well yes, it isn't a witness's job to determine penalties. I think most litigators would have it stricken if someone said "Person A did 'this' which means that 'this' should happen to them."

My statement was an oversimplification of the questions asked of witnesses by the the republican members of the house it was not exactly as you described. Again, simplified, they were asked if they witnessed the like of an impeachable offense or crime. Second, this as has been noted ad nauseam, this is not a court of law, it is an impeachment, so typical testimony rules may not apply...

 

[BugI02]

The Constitution doesn't give the Senate authority to cede its power to another branch of government.

Close. The point is that the Senate, as a body, is the only constitutional arbiter for issues regarding whether the Senate is following its own rules. The CJ cannot arbitrate an internecine disagreement on that question.


[snip]

One point of order I wonder about, if there is a deadlock in a Senate vote on rules or procedures can the VP still serve as a tie-breaking vote? That would certainly wind up some knickers

 

[jamil]

One point of order I wonder about, if there is a deadlock in a Senate vote on rules or procedures can the VP still serve as a tie-breaking vote? That would certainly wind up some knickers

That depends on Senate rules. In the Johnson impeachment, the CJ ruled on ties. I'm not sure what the rules are for this time around.

 

[BugI02]

We are in the rabbit hole, presented with a paradox.

But it seems logical that if A witnessed B performing some act, that the lawyers for B cannot argue both that A should not be allowed to testify and that there are no witnesses to B's act.

At least with OJ, he tried on the glove. If justice is going to miscarry, let's make sure we at least have a doctor in attendance. A real constitutional crisis is brewing here.

Sounds like you are saying that the House's decision not to have Monica testify was not correct? Because she certainly "... witnessed B performing some act .." (provided she could cross her eyes sufficiently) that lawyers for B and B himself were arguing didn't happen

 

[Leadeye]

Hundreds of dc lawyers at $1000 per hour, tell me who's coming out ahead if this thing drags on to eternity.

 

[nonobaddog]

Isn't it easy to over-glamorize the CJ's role in this. I mean he is a non-Senator replacing the VP whose Senate role is not very powerful to start with?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Feinstein leans toward acquitting Trump as his defense team ends impeachment argument


Edit:

And here comes the cleanup

The LA Times misunderstood what I said today. Before the trial I said I'd keep an open mind. Now that both sides made their cases, it’s clear the president’s actions were wrong. He withheld vital foreign assistance for personal political gain. That can’t be allowed to stand.

https://twitter.com/SenFeinstein/status/1222286544733704193