Trump Isn�t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

[Teallaura]

McConnell also said that he was coordinating the trial with the White House council, in other words with the defendent.

Btw, Lindsey Graham said essentially the same thing "I'm not trying to be a fair juror."

So the Senate is behaving exactly like the House. Partisan all the way!

Told you so.

[JimL]

So the Senate is behaving exactly like the House. Partisan all the way!

Told you so.

Sorry Tea, but your posts make it obvious that you're simply afraid of what the previously denied documents and witnesses will reveal.

[Teallaura]

Sorry Tea, but your posts make it obvious that you're simply afraid of what the previously denied documents and witnesses will reveal.

I already gave you a completely doable solution. The House can open a new inquiry and issue the subpoenas.

Why are you so afraid of the House conducting a real inquiry? Is it because you know that the Democrats can't prove their case no matter how many witnesses they call?

[Sam]

Can you please provide a cite for this?

Thanks

Yah

Mitch McConnell: 'I'm not an impartial juror' ahead of Senate impeachment trial

[Sam]

I already gave you a completely doable solution. The House can open a new inquiry and issue the subpoenas.

Why are you so afraid of the House conducting a real inquiry? Is it because you know that the Democrats can't prove their case no matter how many witnesses they call?

Folks, please. The House has repeatedly said that its impeachment inquiry continues and that it may, given what evidence and testimony it uncovers, consider more articles of impeachment. They don't have to "recall" articles of impeachment to continue to gather evidence for current or future articles.

It's DOJ that's arguing the House's subpoenas are no longer valid after the impeachment vote.

--Sam

[Teallaura]

This screed appears to have been written without any relevant details or knowledge of the impeachment proceedings after Day 1 or so.

Copious direct evidence and witness testimony has verified and added to the whistleblower complaint. Numerous scholars and a Judiciary Committee report have laid out the constitutional grounds for impeachment, both including abuse of power in their explanations. The Trump administration, like the Nixon administration before it, has obstructed Congress' lawful powers by withholding witnesses and documents, even while it releases highly redacted copies of those documents to private citizens through FOIA.

And the best you can do here is argue that the House should have waited for months or years for SCOTUS to resolve executive privilege claims with officials who, purportedly, have firsthand testimony that would exonerate Trump? While Trump remains completely free to continue engaging in these solicitations and pressure campaigns for his upcoming election.

Weak stuff, folks.

--Sam

Not as weak as not requesting certiorari

[Teallaura]

Executive privilege had nothing to due with the blocking of subpoenas and witnesses. Trump had contempt of congress from the start saying that "I will fight every subpoena."

Exec Pivilege being the justification and the House never bothered to contest it.

[Teallaura]

Folks, please. The House has repeatedly said that its impeachment inquiry continues and that it may, given what evidence and testimony it uncovers, consider more articles of impeachment. They don't have to "recall" articles of impeachment to continue to gather evidence for current or future articles.

It's DOJ that's arguing the House's subpoenas are no longer valid after the impeachment vote.

--Sam

Then go to court and defend their validity instead of whining about the Senate not issuing subpoenas.

[Sam]

Then go to court and defend their validity instead of whining about the Senate not issuing subpoenas.

The House is literally doing that right now and has been for longer than y'all have been whining about how that's what it should be doing. It doesn't invalidate or replace the Senate's duty to allow relevant witnesses to be called during the trial.

--Sam

[Teallaura]

The House is literally doing that right now and has been for longer than y'all have been whining about how that's what it should be doing. It doesn't invalidate or replace the Senate's duty to allow relevant witnesses to be called during the trial.

--Sam

The Senate isn't the prosecution. Relevant witnesses should have been heard in the inquiry. The Senate is working with what the House may eventually send over.

The House didn't bother to seek remedy in their kangaroo court. The Senate is under no obligation to continue the witch hunt.

[Teallaura]

Heard another theory attributed to Mark Lavin that the House is going to drag this out until the election just in case RBG has to leave the Court.

[JimL]

The Senate isn't the prosecution. Relevant witnesses should have been heard in the inquiry. The Senate is working with what the House may eventually send over.

The Senate isn't the defense either, but they are sure acting like it. Relevant witnesses should have been heard, but were blocked by the "defendent" from being heard. Yes, I know, the courts. But because the charge, "abuse of power" has to do with soliciting foreign interference in the upcoming election, Congress can not wait for the courts and Trumps stalling tactics.

The House didn't bother to seek remedy in their kangaroo court. The Senate is under no obligation to continue the witch hunt.

Yes, they did, and as Sam has informed you, they still are, but the trial can not wait that long for reasons stipulated above, not to mention the fact that he is also trying to run out the clock on being indicted for crimes committed outside of the Presidency. Remember, he can't be indicted for crimes while President.

[Sam]

The Senate isn't the prosecution. Relevant witnesses should have been heard in the inquiry. The Senate is working with what the House may eventually send over.

The House didn't bother to seek remedy in their kangaroo court. The Senate is under no obligation to continue the witch hunt.

The House managers are what the House will send over. They are the prosecution. And typically, if I know my way around a courthouse, prosecutors tend to be able to call witnesses.

Of course, what you're arguing here isn't merely factually incoherent: it's wholly inconsistent with what you were arguing a month ago. Then, you argued that Trump's "due process rights" were being denied by the House because, among other things, he couldn't call witnesses. It was explained that Trump doesn't have that "right" during an investigation or inquiry or even have the full array of due process rights afforded to defendants in criminal cases. You and others argued that the Senate must allow Trump to call "live witnesses", even after it was noted that the Clinton trial's witnesses came in the form of videotaped depositions. Yet, here we are, a month later: Trump reportedly wants to call witnesses at his trial, McConnell does not, and y'all are arguing that the Senate can "set it own rules" and deny witnesses if it wants.

I don't expect it but, at some point, someone in the right-wing media sphere might realize that calling witnesses has a better than 50/50 chance of helping, rather than hurting, Trump. The McGahn ruling is notable in part because it stated that, while McGahn must appear and honor a subpoena, he doesn't have to answer questions

[Cow Poke]

The House managers are what the House will send over.

By the way, Sam, the glaring hole in your "grand jury" analogy....

Nobody goes to a grand jury and says, "OK, people, we have a really bad guy, and we need you to help us figure out what to charge him with".

You figure out what the charges are, THEN you go the Grand Jury and say, "here is the accused, here is the criminal charge, and here is the evidence...."

From there, you either get a true bill or a no bill, then go to trial (or not).

[rogue06]

Not as weak as not requesting certiorari

Or quickly abandoning their subpoena when someone asks the courts for guidance.