Anybody paying close attention to the impeachment trial?

[NPT]

A word about civility and decorum. Yesterday, CJ Roberts came down on both sides about their decorum. Good for him. The “solemn” impeachment process has been marked with grandstanding, photo ops, incivility, and obstreperous conduct at every turn. Roberts won’t fix the antics of politicians, but if he can draw attention to this churlish behavior, more power to him.

Well it started that way with Pelosi making like it was a great day by buying all the pens to sign. It should have been a glum day rather than one for grandstanding. In Nixon's, Clinton's, and Trump's cases it might have been the right thing to do but it should be treated as a sad day. JMO

I don't remember the details of Clinton's impeachment but I'd be willing to bet that the Rs treated it as a great day when they impeached him...... sad.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I actually understand it better than you think, and stand by my post.

I don’t think you know what institution issued the subpoena or what proceeding was involved.

 

[Cortez88]

Because he can’t help himself. Trump “They dont have the material. We have all the material.” He always, always admits to the misdeed. I’m sure the GOP Senators appreciate his involvement.

 

[IUclover]

That wasn't going to happen unless the Dems were stoopider than I think they are. Biden would be under subpoena and forced to testify or take the 5th, while Bolton would show up and then claim he's unable to answer any questions because "executive privilege". Anyone who thinks that Bolton or Mulvaney or Pompeo or any of those clowns would actually respond to questioning doesn't understand how these criminals operate.

Yep, this is exactly what would happen. The Dems might be more effective by just replaying the entire Lev Parnas interview for eight hours.

I doubt they will but I'd love to see someone throw out Nunes' name and his role in the HIC. If the Senate isn't going to agree to anything, why not just shame everyone involved? If the Repubs object, the Dems can say that's all they have to work with and would be open to more information.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

I don’t think you know what institution issued the subpoena or what proceeding was involved.

I do, actually.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I do, actually.

Then you know that the court applied an exception to EP that is not present here. Your “That’s baloney” response is baloney

The court might in the next case interpret Ep in the way you advocate, but that is still an open question.

 

[Cortez88]

Then you know that the court applied an exception to EP that is not present here. Your “That’s baloney” response is baloney

The court might in the next case interpret Ep in the way you advocate, but that is still an open question.

Where are the claims for EP in the current matter? The witnesses have been blocked from testifying in total. No documents have been produced. How can you even determine if there are valid EP claims at this juncture?

 

[Cream&Crimson]

Then you know that the court applied an exception to EP that is not present here. Your “That’s baloney” response is baloney

The court might in the next case interpret Ep in the way you advocate, but that is still an open question.

I don't think they so much applied an exception to EP as much as they ruled, unanimously, that the POTUS does not enjoy "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances," contrary to what this POTUS is trying to claim.

Again, baloney.

 

[zeke4ahs]

A word about civility and decorum. Yesterday, CJ Roberts came down on both sides about their decorum. Good for him. The “solemn” impeachment process has been marked with grandstanding, photo ops, incivility, and obstreperous conduct at every turn. Roberts won’t fix the antics of politicians, but if he can draw attention to this churlish behavior, more power to him.

Baloney. Trump’s attorney have been bald face lying. He should call them on it. It’s shameful, as is anyone who supports how the GOP is covering for the Criminal in Chief.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Baloney. Trump’s attorney have been bald face lying. He should call them on it. It’s shameful, as is anyone who supports how the GOP is covering for the Criminal in Chief.

You always take any discussion down to the level you can understand.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

You always take any discussion down to the level you can understand.

Seems like that's all you've got this afternoon - calling posters ignorant and insulting their intelligence - yet you accuse others of taking the discussion down.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Seems like that's all you've got this afternoon - calling posters ignorant and insulting their intelligence - yet you accuse others of taking the discussion down.

Strange post coming from the “that’s baloney” guy. I started the EP discussion at an intellectual level and tried to keep it there.

 

[Stuffshot]

It's very sad watching it....

Half of our current government is compromised by the Russian mob. We all knew this would be a sham and it's a sham. What happens after is important. If the Mueller fiasco emboldened Trump and the Russia-publicans to be this openly corrupt and reckless, imagine how much more they and Trump will be if he feels vindicated.

Mueller did us a disservice by not reaching a conclusion as to whether that second group of charges relating to obstruction of justice constituted a crime or not. Mueller said he based his decision to refrain from deciding on concern that a mere accusation of crime would place burdens on a sitting President's ability to function, even though a sitting President cannot actually be prosecuted. I think some of the Senators might now be swayed by such a conclusion by Mueller, had he made one.

Instead, Mueller's avoidance of a conclusion had the opposite effect, i.e. it encouraged Trump to exceed his powers and commit more obstructive acts similar to those that Mueller reviewed. Trump took many of his Ukraine actions shortly after the Mueller report was released. So much for not burdening the President -- burden everyone else instead..

I will say that Adam Schiff is making a far better impression in the Senate trial than he did when he was chairing the House committee.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

Strange post coming from the “that’s baloney” guy. I started the EP discussion at an intellectual level and tried to keep it there.

Intellectual baloney tho.

 

[zeke4ahs]

You always take any discussion down to the level you can understand.

I don’t need to be an attorney to know that if you don’t want witnesses or any evidence presented, you aren’t interested in a fair trial. And I don’t need to have any level of intelligence to know that any conversation you enter your only goal is to obfuscate, change the subject, and ultimately make excuses for the shameful joke the party of Trump has turned into.

 

[DrHoops]

I'm 50/50 on that. I think Bolton hates Trump, but I also think he likes the aggressive Iran policy. Total wildcard, but he did call that phone call a "drug deal" and was supposedly totally disgusted.

We'll have to wait for his book I guess.

That wasn't going to happen unless the Dems were stoopider than I think they are. Biden would be under subpoena and forced to testify or take the 5th, while Bolton would show up and then claim he's unable to answer any questions because "executive privilege". Anyone who thinks that Bolton or Mulvaney or Pompeo or any of those clowns would actually respond to questioning doesn't understand how these criminals operate.

 

[dahldc]

Strange post coming from the “that’s baloney” guy. I started the EP discussion at an intellectual level and tried to keep it there.

Other than basically saying "**** you, I know more than you and there's no possible way you could know anything." Sure you tried to keep the discussion at an intellectual level.


I'm sure there's some kind of nuance I'm missing though.

 

[hoot1]

I have long argued that administrations use classified material and executive privilege to keep information from the public (including Congress) which would embarrass the administration and its president.

When faced with impeachment the rationale for withholding information goes well beyond just being embarrassed.

Therefore why should anyone be surprised when a president cloaks himself and his administration under the protections of the executive privilege theory?.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I have long argued that administrations use classified material and executive privilege to keep information from the public (including Congress) which would embarrass the administration and its president.

When faced with impeachment the rationale for withholding information goes well beyond just being embarrassed.

Therefore why should anyone be surprised when a president cloaks himself and his administration under the protections of the executive privilege theory?.

I don’t agree. Privileges are established for sound public policy reasons. As courts have often stated, frank, candid, and robust discussions between an executive and staff is important and even vital for good and efficient government. That would not happen if those participating in a meeting know that anything they might say would be made public. I have asserted EP, as well as other privileges, knowing that the material excluded would be helpful to our side.

Edit: I have no doubt that past presidents as well as the current one use EP to withhold embarrassing information. But “embarrassing” is not an exception to otherwise privileged information.

I think we have separation of powers problems if we use impeachment as an exception to EP. I think impeachable conduct should be conduct proven by extrinsic evidence.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't think they so much applied an exception to EP as much as they ruled, unanimously, that the POTUS does not enjoy "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances," contrary to what this POTUS is trying to claim.

Again, baloney.

Based on the vague references COH is making, I believe the "nuance" you are missing is the "judicial process" quoted above. The Nixon case was in the context of a criminal grand jury investigation, not an impeachment. COH is essentially arguing that, even if the Executive doesn't have absolute EP in the context of a grand jury, it should have absolutely EP in the context of an impeachment.

This argument, of course, is patently absurd to anyone who thinks about it for a moment. Leaving aside the fact that one of Nixon's arguments before SCOTUS was that the office of the President was exempt from oversight processes outside impeachment (i.e., his lawyers implicitly argued that, if the documents were requested in the context of an impeachment investigation, then the White House would be forced to comply), the central point of the issue is that impeachment is the process through which the one branch of government exercises its final check on the power of the other, and to argue that Congress must investigate the White House without any access to the inner workings of the White House itself is to argue that impeachment is stupid, and should be rendered toothless, making the President effectively an autarch, which is exactly the sort of thing COH would have loudly bemoaned (and often did, in fact) every single day right up to January 20, 2017.

Sorry for the long sentence, but I think it's syntactically sound.

 

[UncleMark]

Based on the vague references COH is making, I believe the "nuance" you are missing is the "judicial process" quoted above. The Nixon case was in the context of a criminal grand jury investigation, not an impeachment. COH is essentially arguing that, even if the Executive doesn't have absolute EP in the context of a grand jury, it should have absolutely EP in the context of an impeachment.

This argument, of course, is patently absurd to anyone who thinks about it for a moment. Leaving aside the fact that one of Nixon's arguments before SCOTUS was that the office of the President was exempt from oversight processes outside impeachment (i.e., his lawyers implicitly argued that, if the documents were requested in the context of an impeachment investigation, then the White House would be forced to comply), the central point of the issue is that impeachment is the process through which the one branch of government exercises its final check on the power of the other, and to argue that Congress must investigate the White House without any access to the inner workings of the White House itself is to argue that impeachment is stupid, and should be rendered toothless, making the President effectively an autarch, which is exactly the sort of thing COH would have loudly bemoaned (and often did, in fact) every single day right up to January 20, 2017.

Sorry for the long sentence, but I think it's syntactically sound.

Shorter version: COH, per usual, is being disingenuous, dishonest, and is generally full of shit.

Let's see how long this stays up.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Based on the vague references COH is making, I believe the "nuance" you are missing is the "judicial process" quoted above. The Nixon case was in the context of a criminal grand jury investigation, not an impeachment. COH is essentially arguing that, even if the Executive doesn't have absolute EP in the context of a grand jury, it should have absolutely EP in the context of an impeachment.

This argument, of course, is patently absurd to anyone who thinks about it for a moment. Leaving aside the fact that one of Nixon's arguments before SCOTUS was that the office of the President was exempt from oversight processes outside impeachment (i.e., his lawyers implicitly argued that, if the documents were requested in the context of an impeachment investigation, then the White House would be forced to comply), the central point of the issue is that impeachment is the process through which the one branch of government exercises its final check on the power of the other, and to argue that Congress must investigate the White House without any access to the inner workings of the White House itself is to argue that impeachment is stupid, and should be rendered toothless, making the President effectively an autarch, which is exactly the sort of thing COH would have loudly bemoaned (and often did, in fact) every single day right up to January 20, 2017.

Sorry for the long sentence, but I think it's syntactically sound.

Think about your position in terms of impeaching a federal judge. If we accept abuse of power as a basis for impeachment, imagine an impeachment investigation of a judge who ruled against Trump which ruling was reversed on appeal on the basis that the judge abused discretion (power). Should the house committee have access to what that judge said to the clerk about what the judge thinks about Trump’s politics? I say no with no exceptions. Conversations between a judge and clerk about pending matters should be absolutely confidential.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Think about your position in terms of impeaching a federal judge. If we accept abuse of power as a basis for impeachment, imagine an impeachment investigation of a judge who ruled against Trump which ruling was reversed on appeal on the basis that the judge abused discretion (power). Should the house committee have access to what that judge said to the clerk about what the judge thinks about Trump’s politics? I say no with no exceptions. Conversations between a judge and clerk should be absolutely confidential.

I have no idea, and I'm not going to bother forming an opinion on that, because I know this for sure: the witnesses and documents held back by Trump's claim of EP are not conversations between a judge and a clerk. They are officers and work product of the United States of America.

 

[UncleMark]

If we accept abuse of power as a basis for impeachment, imagine an impeachment investigation of a judge who ruled against Trump which ruling was reversed on appeal on the basis that the judge abused discretion (power).

LOL. So now a judge's "abuse of discretion" (whatever the fxck that's supposed to be or mean) is the equivalent to the President (ab)using the power of his office for personal gain.

What color is the sky in your world?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I have no idea, and I'm not going to bother forming an opinion on that, because I know this for sure: the witnesses and documents held back by Trump's claim of EP are not conversations between a judge and a clerk. They are officers and work product of the United States of America.

Huh? A federal judge doesn’t work for the United States of America?

You really haven’t stated a sound policy reason why congress should invade executive privileged matters in search of impeaching evidence.

I’d agree if the impeachment centered on a criminal case such as assault, there would be good reasons to invade the privilege. This is similar to the US v. Nixon analysis. But when impeachment is solely directed to abuse of power, with no implication of the criminal code, and only involves official authority, I don’t think you’ve made a sound argument.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I've not been able to so. If anyone can give an unbiased, impartial, emotionally detached summary of the events, please do so.

TIA.

I didn't respond to your OP because I didn't watch Day 1, but I can say this about Day 2: The House managers' presentation is a lot more compelling than the accumulation of statements and accusations and summaries spread out over the various House hearings.

Not that I expect it to change much, but this is a solid case being put forward. We'll see how things stand after the President's team makes their rebuttal, but I'd say the one thing we have to at least consider is the possibility that a strong enough case will put enough pressure on the Republicans to convince four of them to agree to call witnesses.

(I say four rather than three, because I'm firmly convinced that Roberts will decline to raise the question of whether or not he can break ties, and abstain in any 50-50 vote.)

 

[CO. Hoosier]

LOL. So now a judge's "abuse of discretion" (whatever the fxck that's supposed to be or mean) is the equivalent to the President (ab)using the power of his office for personal gain.

What color is the sky in your world?

So now you are finding nuance in the concept of abuse of power? Where are you going to draw that line between impeachment worthy abuse and garden variety abuse?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You really haven’t stated a sound policy reason why congress should invade executive privileged matters in search of impeaching evidence.

Sure, I did. I argued that handcuffing Congress as you would do would make impeachment toothless, and convert the President into a de facto Emperor.

I’d agree if the impeachment centered on a criminal case such as assault, there would be good reasons to invade the privilege. This is similar to the US v. Nixon analysis. But when impeachment is solely directed to abuse of power, with no implication of the criminal code, and only involves official authority, I don’t think you’ve made a sound argument.

Well, now you're changing your argument again, and the reason I didn't tailor my response to abuse of power is because I wasn't responding to a post about abuse of power. But I will say that your dissembling here is equally as absurd as your original broad point. You're essentially writing into the Constitution limits on impeachable conduct based on statutory criminality.

 

[UncleMark]

So now you are finding nuance in the concept of abuse of power? Where are you going to draw that line between impeachment worthy abuse and garden variety abuse?

That's what judicial proceedings are all about, isn't it? Drawing lines? Or would you posit that there are no lines to be drawn, it's all or nothing?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Sure, I did. I argued that handcuffing Congress as you would do would make impeachment toothless, and convert the President into a de facto Emperor.


Well, now you're changing your argument again, and the reason I didn't tailor my response to abuse of power is because I wasn't responding to a post about abuse of power. But I will say that your dissembling here is equally as absurd as your original broad point. You're essentially writing into the Constitution limits on impeachable conduct based on statutory criminality.

Discussion about privileges necessarily involve the reason for the privilege in the first place and the reason for invading it. Handcuffing is not part of the analysis except as a balancing factor. I don’t buy your handcuffing point because the evidence sought is mostly cumulative. Witnesses already testified to what Bolton supposedly would say.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That's what judicial proceedings are all about, isn't it? Drawing lines? Or would you posit that there are no lines to be drawn, it's all or nothing?

I think I’d say abuse of power should not ever be grounds for impeachment. The system already accounts for that. It’s called appellate courts, elections, and legislation.

Impeachment should be reserved to clear violations of law that could subject the offender to prosecution.

 

[IUclover]

So now you are finding nuance in the concept of abuse of power? Where are you going to draw that line between impeachment worthy abuse and garden variety abuse?

Personally, as a neutral party, do you believe Trump has committed impeachable offenses and should be removed from office? He just publicly stated he has all the goods and Dems can’t use them.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Discussion about privileges necessarily involve the reason for the privilege in the first place and the reason for invading it. Handcuffing is not part of the analysis except as a balancing factor. I don’t buy your handcuffing point because the evidence sought is mostly cumulative. Witnesses already testified to what Bolton supposedly would say.

And you're still evading the point. The reason I responded to C&C was to clear up for him what appeared to be your problem. You stated the problem was that he didn't understand who issued the Nixon subpoena and what the relevant proceeding was. I explained to him what you were obviously talking about, and why your argument was absurd.

Now you're avoiding responding to what I actually said.

If you have a direct response to the argument I actually made, please make it. I am not following you down yet another rabbit hole.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Personally, as a neutral party, do you believe Trump has committed impeachable offenses and should be removed from office? He just publicly stated he has all the goods and Dems can’t use them.

Trump effectively, in public, pleaded guilty to the obstruction of Congress charge. It won't matter to Republicans.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

And you're still evading the point. The reason I responded to C&C was to clear up for him what appeared to be your problem. You stated the problem was that he didn't understand who issued the Nixon subpoena and what the relevant proceeding was. I explained to him what you were obviously talking about, and why your argument was absurd.

Now you're avoiding responding to what I actually said.

If you have a direct response to the argument I actually made, please make it. I am not following you down yet another rabbit hole.

Saying you responded doesn’t make it so. That “Emperor” and “handcuff” argument is not an argument. Applying EP executive material does not create emperors and does not stifle congress.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Saying you responded doesn’t make it so. That “Emperor” and “handcuff” argument is not an argument. Applying EP executive material does not create emperors and does not stifle congress.

You originally said this:

In the case of impeachment, IMO, the impeachment case must be made with evidence external to the inner workings of the office of president.

I said this in response to this argument:

This argument, of course, is patently absurd to anyone who thinks about it for a moment. Leaving aside the fact that one of Nixon's arguments before SCOTUS was that the office of the President was exempt from oversight processes outside impeachment (i.e., his lawyers implicitly argued that, if the documents were requested in the context of an impeachment investigation, then the White House would be forced to comply), the central point of the issue is that impeachment is the process through which the one branch of government exercises its final check on the power of the other, and to argue that Congress must investigate the White House without any access to the inner workings of the White House itself is to argue that impeachment is stupid, and should be rendered toothless, making the President effectively an autarch, which is exactly the sort of thing COH would have loudly bemoaned (and often did, in fact) every single day right up to January 20, 2017.

You can disagree, but dismissing it out of hand as something other than a coherent argument only serves to show that you can't frame any response to justify your disagreement.

 

[UncleMark]

I think I’d say abuse of power should not ever be grounds for impeachment. The system already accounts for that. It’s called appellate courts, elections, and legislation.

Impeachment should be reserved to clear violations of law that could subject the offender to prosecution.

Were you standing on your head when you wrote that? That's the only way it makes sense.

 

[tooold4]

Think about your position in terms of impeaching a federal judge. If we accept abuse of power as a basis for impeachment, imagine an impeachment investigation of a judge who ruled against Trump which ruling was reversed on appeal on the basis that the judge abused discretion (power). Should the house committee have access to what that judge said to the clerk about what the judge thinks about Trump’s politics? I say no with no exceptions. Conversations between a judge and clerk about pending matters should be absolutely confidential.

Since you brought up federal judge impeachment, there have been 15 such trials held in the Senate and all 15 heard witness testimony. Regardless of charges or articles, some were removed from office and some were not. Witness testimony has a place in trial proceedings.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Were you standing on your head when you wrote that? That's the only way it makes sense.

I think what he meant to say was that impeachment should be reserved for very serious affairs, such as a consensual sexual act.

 

[UncleMark]

Since you brought up federal judge impeachment, there have been 15 such trials held in the Senate and all 15 heard witness testimony. Regardless of charges or articles, some were removed from office and some were not. Witness testimony has a place in trial proceedings.

Republican judges or Democrat judges?