Impeachment

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Now there is only 99 Senators there, because Rand Paul walked out after Chief Justice Roberts refused to ask his question.

[elengil]

Now there is only 99 Senators there, because Rand Paul walked out after Chief Justice Roberts refused to ask his question.

... is that even allowed??

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Honestly, I'm not sure. Apparently, he left the hall in order to speak to reporters to complain. I don't know whether he went back in after he spoke to the reporters.

ETA: It is against the Senate Impeachment rules, but he obviously is not going to face any consequences for doing so.

[elengil]

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/trump ... e-same-day

Trump administration says impeachment is legitimate and not, on the same day.
As he stood up to answer a question on Thursday, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the lead Democratic House manager, said that on the same day that President Trump’s lawyers were fighting his impeachment in the Senate, the president’s own Justice Department was making a contrary argument in federal court.

In a hearing over the 2020 census on Thursday, a federal judge asked what the remedy might be for the House of Representatives when the White House defies its subpoenas — as the president has done in the impeachment trial. James Burnham, the attorney for the Justice Department, replied without hesitation that the House could use its impeachment powers.

Senate Democrats laughed when Mr. Schiff recounted the answer, puncturing the silence that had earlier permeated the room. Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, threw up his arms as if to say, “See?”

Senate Republicans sat stone-faced.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Burnham went on to assert -- correctly -- that both sides were hypocritical in making opposite arguments in the two forums.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[elengil]

I'm not sure that's accurate if this is what you're referring to:

Burnham said the Democratic-controlled House wants to have it both ways: It wants to impeach the President for obstruction of Congress and also ask courts to enforce its subpoenas for executive branch information.

The House isn't actually doing it "both ways". Being unable to get their argument through the courts, they decided to add obstruction, they weren't pursuing both at the same time, or arguing one in court and the other in the trial. They aren't currently in court for the subpoenas they attempted to enforce that they then added to the articles of impeachment. X then Y is not the same as X and Y at the same time.

Meanwhile

And, Burnham conceded, the Trump administration wants it both ways, too -- no impeachment, and no court cases.

The other side wants to say here that they can't have either, while arguing at the same time they could do both - or more specifically, in each venue claiming the other venue was the correct path. Saying in the impeachment they should have gone to court, and saying in court well they can always impeach.

The WH Defense is the one saying that you can't use the courts to judge a subpoena, then criticizing the House for not going to court to uphold the subpoena, then saying that the correct response is to impeach, and further criticizing the House for impeaching.

I do not at all find these arguments equivalent.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm not sure that's accurate

I assume when you say it isn't accurate you are referring to Burnham's comments, not my pointing out that he called both sides hypocrites, because he literally stated (this is an exact quote): "They are hypocrites. We are hypocrites, I guess."

As for the rest of your comments, I agree to a large extent, but not completely. I would be particularly interested in seeing yov's response, if he cared to give one, since he has been the biggest proponent here of the House pursuing the subpoenas in court rather than proceeding to impeachment and including an article alleging obstruction.

[elengil]

By 'not sure that's accurate" I meant your claim that his assertion was correct... I don't believe it was correct. It was attempting to make two completely different circumstances somehow equivalent.

And I believe that Cerin has been perhaps the most vocal about pursuit in court, though perhaps only in context of not having the info the subpoena would have resulted in had the courts decided in the House's favor...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I would still be interested in yov's thoughts about the subject (and anyone else's, of course).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile, after listening to Adam Schiff answer Elizabeth Warren's question, I feel like putting a "Warren - Schiff 2020" bumper sticker on my car. He has been very impressive. The other House manager that I think has been effective is Jason Crow, particularly given his military experience. On the other hand, I cringe every time Jerry Nadler steps up to the podium.

[yovargas]

Did you mean my thoughts on this, V-man?

I'm not sure that's accurate if this is what you're referring to:

Burnham said the Democratic-controlled House wants to have it both ways: It wants to impeach the President for obstruction of Congress and also ask courts to enforce its subpoenas for executive branch information.

If so, my thoughts are - huh?? The phrase "have it both ways" would usually mean wanting two opposing or incompatible things. Unless I'm completely missing something, I don't understand why that would be the case here at all. What's "both ways" about charging someone with wrongdoing and then asking the courts to undo that wrongdoing?

[elengil]

Meanwhile, after listening to Adam Schiff answer Elizabeth Warren's question, I feel like putting a "Warren - Schiff 2020" bumper sticker on my car. He has been very impressive. The other House manager that I think has been effective is Jason Crow, particularly given his military experience. On the other hand, I cringe every time Jerry Nadler steps up to the podium.

I realize you're watching and not making a handy transcript for all of us stuck at work, for example, but can you share the gist of the question and answer?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I will when I have more time


Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Faramond has already given the question in the election thread. It was the answer that I thought was so impressive. After first emphatically stating that the trial did not reflect poorly on the Chief Justice or the Supreme Court because he was doing an exemplary job overseeing the trial, but that it reflected poorly on the United States. Schiff pivoted to discussing how the actions that led to the trial reflected poorly on the United States. Specifically, he talked about the testimony of Ambassador Volker (one of the witnesses that was requested by the GOP, by the way) in which he talked about a conversation that he had with a Ukrainian official in which Ambassador Volker was urging the new Ukrainian government not to engage in a politically-motivated investigation of the prior president. The Ukrainian responded "like the investigation of Biden that the U.S. is seeking?" It was an opportunity for Schiff to make an impassioned statement about how the U.S. has always been seen as an example of how Democracy and the rule of law should work and how Trump's actions have damaged that, and he nailed it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile, Lisa Murkowski, one of the two remaining GOP senators who are undecided (or at least unannounced) about calling Bolton to testify, just asked the president's counsel to explain why they should not call him. Here's the full question and answer:

You explained that Ambassador Sondland and Senator Johnson both said the President explicitly denied that he was looking for a quid pro quo with Ukraine. The reporting on Ambassador Bolton's book suggests the President told Bolton directly that the aid would not be released until Ukraine announced the investigations the President desired. This dispute about material facts weighs in favor of calling additional witnesses with direct knowledge. Why should this body not call Ambassador Bolton?

Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin responded, "I think the primary consideration here is to understand that the House could have pursued Ambassador Bolton." 

He continued: "The House considered whether or not they would try to have him come testify and subpoena him. They chose not to subpoena him." 

Philbin added that the Senate has to consider the precedent that will be set by how they vote on witnesses. "Because whatever is accepted in this case becomes the new normal for every impeachment proceeding in the future," he said. 

And Lamar Alexander, the other undecided/unannounced senator, said he would announce his decision tonight after the last question. If Murkowski and Alexander both say yes, Bolton will almost certainly be subpoenaed.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Of course, what Philbin didn't say was that the reason the House didn't subpoena Bolton was that he announced that he would not appear in response to a House subpoena because of the president instructing him not to.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[yovargas]

Have I mentioned how much I wish the House had pursued these subpoenas?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I seem to recall that you might have mentioned that once or twice.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[River]

I am wondering how, when >70% of the public believes the Senate should call witnesses, how the Senate intends to sell the outcome of this trial as legitimate if they don't file subpoenas.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well, they will have to, because Alexander announced that he is a no on witnesses and documents.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk