Trump Isn�t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

[JimL]

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).

In this case the House is both, the investigative body, and the grand jury, they both gather the evidence and decide whether to take it to trial.

[MaxVel]

Well, I'm not claiming that it's all some partisan game where both sides are on equal footing pursuing crass political ends.

--Sam

OK then, so your bias makes you a better judge of things exactly how?

[Sam]

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).

2019.09.24 - Impeachment inquiry begins in HPSCI

2019.11.13 - HPSCI hearings begins, HPSCI issues report to Judiciary Committee

2019.12.04 - Judiciary Committee hearings begin, Judiciary Committee issues reports detailing the constitutional grounds for impeaching Trump and fact-finding conclusions

2019.12.12 - Judiciary Committee votes to send two articles of impeachment to full House (the "grand jury" in this analogy)

2019.12.18 - Trump is impeached by the House ("true bill")


But, at trial, prosecutors are still relatively free to call witnesses and submit evidence that was not presented or available during the GJ phase.

--Sam

[Littlejoe]

But, at trial, prosecutors are still relatively free to call witnesses and submit evidence that was not presented or available during the GJ phase.

--Sam

Yes and no. In real life, surprise witnesses are highly frowned upon in a normal courtroom. Discovery rules require both sides to list all the witnesses, and exhibits it intends to present at trial to support its side. Now, it's common to try to "hide" pertinent witnesses in a list of witnesses that your may or may not intend to actually call (depending on how the trial is going) making it up to the other side to depose your witness(es) before the trial. But, just calling them up with no warning to the other side is often not allowed without the letting the other side depose them.

[Cow Poke]

Yes and no. In real life, surprise witnesses are highly frowned upon in a normal courtroom. Discovery rules require both sides to list all the witnesses, and exhibits it intends to present at trial to support its side. Now, it's common to try to "hide" pertinent witnesses in a list of witnesses that your may or may not intend to actually call (depending on how the trial is going) making it up to the other side to depose your witness(es) before the trial. But, just calling them up with no warning to the other side is often not allowed without the letting the other side depose them.

The rare exception I've seen, LJ, is "but, your honor, we JUST DISCOVERED this witness last night!!!" or something urgent like that.

[Cow Poke]

2019.09.24 - Impeachment inquiry begins in HPSCI

2019.11.13 - HPSCI hearings begins, HPSCI issues report to Judiciary Committee

2019.12.04 - Judiciary Committee hearings begin, Judiciary Committee issues reports detailing the constitutional grounds for impeaching Trump and fact-finding conclusions

2019.12.12 - Judiciary Committee votes to send two articles of impeachment to full House (the "grand jury" in this analogy)

2019.12.18 - Trump is impeached by the House ("true bill")


But, at trial, prosecutors are still relatively free to call witnesses and submit evidence that was not presented or available during the GJ phase.

--Sam

So, it's NOT like a grand jury!

Why is it impossible for you to just say, "well, yeah, you have a point".

Again --- you don't just walk into a grand jury proceeding and say "orange man bad, let's try to figure out what to charge him with".

[JimL]

Yes and no. In real life, surprise witnesses are highly frowned upon in a normal courtroom. Discovery rules require both sides to list all the witnesses, and exhibits it intends to present at trial to support its side. Now, it's common to try to "hide" pertinent witnesses in a list of witnesses that your may or may not intend to actually call (depending on how the trial is going) making it up to the other side to depose your witness(es) before the trial. But, just calling them up with no warning to the other side is often not allowed without the letting the other side depose them.

So, any new witnesses as well as new articles can be submitted so long as the trial has not begun. The Mcgahn case is still pending and could be decided at any time in which case his testimony could be added to the obstruction charge, as well as any other evidence the becomes available prior to the start of the trial.

[JimL]

So, it's NOT like a grand jury!

Why is it impossible for you to just say, "well, yeah, you have a point".

Again --- you don't just walk into a grand jury proceeding and say "orange man bad, let's try to figure out what to charge him with".

No one said it's exactly like a grand jury, and they didn't just walk in and say orange man bad lets try and figure out what to charge him with. The charges were alleged, and investigated.

[Sam]

So, it's NOT like a grand jury!

Why is it impossible for you to just say, "well, yeah, you have a point".

Again --- you don't just walk into a grand jury proceeding and say "orange man bad, let's try to figure out what to charge him with".

I'm sorry but how, exactly, does this differ from the traditional method of investigation and presentation to a grand jury?

HPSCI conducted an investigation and presented its findings of fact to the Judiciary Committee -- you could think of HPSCI as LEOs and Judiciary as DAs, here. Judiciary then presented its findings to the full House, which would constitute the grand jury. The House/GJ voted out a "true bill" for impeachment.

What there strikes you as very dissimilar from a normal grand jury experience?

Y'all are humorous with the "orange man bad" stuff but not in the way you think -- it's just continuously used as a way to outright ignore the actual wrongdoing that folks are pointing out and pretend that they're not talking about real facts and real details that you'd have to grapple with.

--Sam

[Sam]

Yes and no. In real life, surprise witnesses are highly frowned upon in a normal courtroom. Discovery rules require both sides to list all the witnesses, and exhibits it intends to present at trial to support its side. Now, it's common to try to "hide" pertinent witnesses in a list of witnesses that your may or may not intend to actually call (depending on how the trial is going) making it up to the other side to depose your witness(es) before the trial. But, just calling them up with no warning to the other side is often not allowed without the letting the other side depose them.

But that's not relevant to what's happening here.

These aren't "surprise witnesses" -- they're key witnesses who are known to possess critical information who have already been subpoenaed by the House. Nor are they being sprung upon the court in the middle of a trial -- the trial has not even begun. Both sides would, as in the Clinton impeachment, have the ability to depose the witnesses prior to the House managers' presentation before the Senate.

This is akin to the normal process of pre-trial witness arrangements, in other words, and completely dissimilar from surprise witnesses.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

But that's not relevant to what's happening here.

These aren't "surprise witnesses" -- they're key witnesses who are known to possess critical information who have already been subpoenaed by the House. Nor are they being sprung upon the court in the middle of a trial -- the trial has not even begun. Both sides would, as in the Clinton impeachment, have the ability to depose the witnesses prior to the House managers' presentation before the Senate.

This is akin to the normal process of pre-trial witness arrangements, in other words, and completely dissimilar from surprise witnesses.

--Sam

Except the House already voted on impeachment without the testimony, so you can't really make the argument that it's critical to the prosecution's case.

Also, whether or not the House even has the authority to breach the executive privilege firewall in this case is still an open question until the judiciary has made its final decision.

Finally, the whole point of a fair and impartial trial is to be fair and impartial to the defendant. It has never meant tipping the scales to be most favorable to the prosecution, which is what the Democrats are demanding.

[Cow Poke]

Yah

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

So, as I assumed, what you claimed is an exaggerated version of what was ACTUALLY said. No surprise there whatsoever.

[Sam]

Except the House already voted on impeachment without the testimony, so you can't really make the argument that it's critical to the prosecution's case.

Also, whether or not the House even has the authority to breach the executive privilege firewall in this case is still an open question until the judiciary has made its final decision.

Finally, the whole point of a fair and impartial trial is to be fair and impartial to the defendant. It has never meant tipping the scales to be most favorable to the prosecution, which is what the Democrats are demanding.

Fair and impartial means just that. A trial that acquits a rapist because the defense was able to call character witnesses and the prosecution was denied the ability to call key eye witnesses, on account that the judge is an old golf friend of the defendant, is neither fair nor impartial.

Critical, likewise, means just that: something of key importance. Mulvaney, Bolton, Duffey, et al. are critical key witnesses because they're the people closest to the President's direct orders and state of mind. Whether they help the prosecution's case or the defense's depends mostly on Trump's guilt or innocence.

A bit of a slip for you to assume that they're helpful to the prosecution but, honestly, that's where everyone here is in their heads and hearts, anyway.

--Sam

[Sam]

So, as I assumed, what you claimed is an exaggerated version of what was ACTUALLY said. No surprise there whatsoever.

No, I believe I pretty much quoted what they said verbatim.

Edit to add: Yeah; both Trump and McConnell said they wouldn't be impartial jurors, which is contrary to the oath they are to take for the trial. So no exaggeration at all.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

No, I believe I pretty much quoted what they said verbatim.

No, you really didn't. You added your own special charm. If something is verbatim, Sam, it's "in exact words", and not "pretty much".