Impeachment Hearing

[n david]

An amendment from a Maryland Dem to have Chief Justice Roberts subpoena witnesses or docs has been submitted, McConnell again moves to table.

From what I read above, this should be the final amendment before the McConnell resolution is voted on.

Motion to table passes 53-47

[n david]

McConnell resolution on Rules for Deliberating and Voting on Articles has passed 53-47

[n david]

Per McConnell the final vote will be on Wednesday.

Senate has adjourned

[Amanah]

One thing is bothering me. Wouldn't it have been better to deal with Bolton's critique of Trump under oath? Did the Republicans win a battle that will cost the war?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Amanah

One thing is bothering me. Wouldn't it have been better to deal with Bolton's critique of Trump under oath? Did the Republicans win a battle that will cost the war?

I think the answer is that the GOP doesn't care whether or not there was a quid pro quo, so Bolton's book is irrelevant.

And this viewpoint can be justified by saying that obtaining witness testimony is the responsibility of the house.

The purpose of a legal defense is to formulate an argument for acquittal, not so much to uncover the truth.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Amanah

One thing is bothering me. Wouldn't it have been better to deal with Bolton's critique of Trump under oath? Did the Republicans win a battle that will cost the war?

The White House simply sent out a stellar team with a calm, encyclopedia brainiac Constitutional attorney against juvenile, emotionally unhinged House Managers. Even the Anti-Trump Washington Post gave Schiff four Pinocchio’s for lying that he did not know the Whistleblower. Nadler also insulted the whole Republican Senate as traitors to a cover-up. Not a good plan to win. This case is over.

The NYT puts out subjective leaks about Bolton’s book. Certainly a ploy to keep this going. Bolton is writing his bitter story like Comey and the rest.

The Democrats knew they wouldn’t win, but got what they wanted - a coverup narrative for the 2020 election. They do not ever need to be in power.

[Pressing-On]

“Our position is that the Constitution requires incrementalism in conflicts between the branches, and that means that first there should be an accommodation process.” Patrick Philbin, White House Counsel

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I think the answer is that the GOP doesn't care whether or not there was a quid pro quo, so Bolton's book is irrelevant.

And this viewpoint can be justified by saying that obtaining witness testimony is the responsibility of the house.

The purpose of a legal defense is to formulate an argument for acquittal, not so much to uncover the truth.

The procedure for a jury trial is to allow the defense team to depose all witnesses. The Democrats would not allow it. The Democrats cannot make up new procedures by bringing in “new” witnesses into a jury trial when the Defense has not had the opportunity to depose.

The Constitutional argument is to follow procedure or you, in the future, break down the barriers set between the branches.

[Amanah]

Apparently in the Clinton trial witnesses were called after it was voted on because the Senate can define the process:

In a Jan. 11, 1999, interview on CNN's "Larry King Live," Biden suggested he was "open to the prospect of witnesses" but only if House Republicans who were managing Clinton's impeachment in the Senate "make a case as to why they didn't see any need for any witnesses and now they think they should call witnesses."

Yet Biden and other Clinton allies — including now-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) — lost the witness fight during that 1999 trial. The Senate agreed to depose former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, whose affair with Clinton led to just the second presidential impeachment in history, as well as two other witnesses.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...witness-109730

[Pressing-On]

Democrats opposed any witnesses in the Clinton impeachment trial and voted as a bloc for a summary acquittal. There was no reason to expect Republicans to adopt a different approach.

How the House lost the witness battle along with impeachment
Johnathan Turley
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...th-impeachment