I'm not sure about federal.
Definitely, he can't be pardoned for state crimes and NY, NJ, and FL are 3 of who knows how many who are at least investigating him or have indicted him under seal. I think he'll be spending more time in courtrooms than golf courses after he leaves office.
Not to sideline the thread, but along the lines of time spent on golf courses, specifically his golf courses, I heard yesterday that the Trump administration is dragging their feet about the required secret service reporting of annual expenditures. Apparently they don't like the optics of the rumored number being larger in three years (3) than what was spent on Obama security in eight (8)....
Yes, I saw that too. If I was a Dem candidate, I'd run ads running up to the election reinforcing / exposing this. Further during the prez debates, whoever the Dem candidate is should repeatedly bring this up on stage vs Trump hammering him over & over for details exposing his unwillingness for transparency. This and also bring to national attention buckets full of emoluments violations by Trump = using his office to make money off the American taxpayers. Tell it to the public in ads and in debates & watch him turn orange.
Sorry for going off topic.
Wouldn't be my strategy. Those who dislike Trump already are convinced he is a crook. Those who support him either don't care or they believe any bad thing said about him is Fake News. The only way to pick up any new voters is to explain why your policy will better benefit them than Trump's policy. Trashing Trump won't get you any new voters.
Not surprisingly, Trump announced today he would invoke "Executive Privilege" to prevent John Bolton from testifying in his impeachment trial in the Senate should Republicans vote to include witness testimony...
I'm absolutely shocked Trump would prevent Bolton from testifying as he claimed repeatedly that he's wants a fair trial....(That's sarcasm Goober, Big V)..
Not surprisingly, Trump announced today he would invoke "Executive Privilege" to prevent John Bolton from testifying in his impeachment trial in the Senate should Republicans vote to include witness testimony...
I'm absolutely shocked Trump would prevent Bolton from testifying as he claimed repeatedly that he's wants a fair trial....(That's sarcasm Goober, Big V)..
They don't really need to hear what *tRump said to Bolton. They only need to know what Bolton knew and told staff to go to the lawyers about. Why he thought it was a "drug deal". Direct conversation would be great but the fact he sent his staff to the lawyers office to let them know is pretty damning evidence of what he knew and he's a lawyer.
Not surprisingly, Trump announced today he would invoke "Executive Privilege" to prevent John Bolton from testifying in his impeachment trial in the Senate should Republicans vote to include witness testimony...
I'm absolutely shocked Trump would prevent Bolton from testifying as he claimed repeatedly that he's wants a fair trial....(That's sarcasm Goober, Big V)..
They don't really need to hear what *tRump said to Bolton. They only need to know what Bolton knew and told staff to go to the lawyers about. Why he thought it was a "drug deal". Direct conversation would be great but the fact he sent his staff to the lawyers office to let them know is pretty damning evidence of what he knew and he's a lawyer.
All true. However, Bolton testifying in person, in a Senate impeachment trial, stating on live television, under oath, that Trump did what we all know he did, would undercut much of the Trump crowd's spin that Trump is innocent. Especially coming from a long-time Fox news pundit, Trump supporter, and right wing hawk....Just a theory.
[Edited on 1/11/2020 by Chain]
Not surprisingly, Trump announced today he would invoke "Executive Privilege" to prevent John Bolton from testifying in his impeachment trial in the Senate should Republicans vote to include witness testimony...
I'm absolutely shocked Trump would prevent Bolton from testifying as he claimed repeatedly that he's wants a fair trial....(That's sarcasm Goober, Big V)..
And he's repeatedly stated that he WANTS witnesses. He just doesn't get that what he wants is irrelevant.
Executive privilege isn't absolute & both Nixon and Clinton lost their court cases re exercise of the privilege. Executive privilege is considered to have been waived if the executive discusses the topic he wants to claim is privileged. Since DJT has repeatedly discussed & tweeted about the Ukrainian quid pro quo question & described the July 25 phone call as "perfect" to anyone who'll listen, has had his personal lawyer Guiliani making the talk show rounds on the contents & context of that call, and transcripts of the call have been released there's no privilege to claim. Bolton's testimony would probably be as much about context as substance.
The man just can't stop showing his complete ignorance of how government works. He's learned some buzz words but doesn't understand their meaning.
Not surprisingly, Trump announced today he would invoke "Executive Privilege" to prevent John Bolton from testifying in his impeachment trial in the Senate should Republicans vote to include witness testimony...
I'm absolutely shocked Trump would prevent Bolton from testifying as he claimed repeatedly that he's wants a fair trial....(That's sarcasm Goober, Big V)..
And he's repeatedly stated that he WANTS witnesses. He just doesn't get that what he wants is irrelevant.
Executive privilege isn't absolute & both Nixon and Clinton lost their court cases re exercise of the privilege. Executive privilege is considered to have been waived if the executive discusses the topic he wants to claim is privileged. Since DJT has repeatedly discussed & tweeted about the Ukrainian quid pro quo question & described the July 25 phone call as "perfect" to anyone who'll listen, has had his personal lawyer Guiliani making the talk show rounds on the contents & context of that call, and transcripts of the call have been released there's no privilege to claim. Bolton's testimony would probably be as much about context as substance.
The man just can't stop showing his complete ignorance of how government works. He's learned some buzz words but doesn't understand their meaning.
Watching the clip with Trump and plastic face Laura Ingrahm (the Fox Network may have the finest plastic surgeon on retainer in all of broadcast news) on Trump network earlier today proclaiming that he think's it's vital for future presidents that he invoke executive privilege was quite comical. I guess we're supposed to believe that Trump is now suddenly concerned for the future of not only the presidency but the republic too....And of course Laura neglected to point out, since she's a lawyer, exactly what you stated Cyclone....Truly shocking she'd not point this out to the viewers (again, that's sarcasm Goob and Big V)...
Watching the clip with Trump and plastic face Laura Ingrahm (the Fox Network may have the finest plastic surgeon on retainer in all of broadcast news) on Trump network earlier today proclaiming that he think's it's vital for future presidents that he invoke executive privilege was quite comical. I guess we're supposed to believe that Trump is now suddenly concerned for the future of not only the presidency but the republic too....And of course Laura neglected to point out, since she's a lawyer, exactly what you stated Cyclone....Truly shocking she'd not point this out to the viewers (again, that's sarcasm Goob and Big V)...
I think there've been many instances of hilarity during this administration were they not so serious. He's had his friendly interview now & will probably send Rudy around to discuss Exec Privilege on the Sun chat shows where there might be questions.
Further during the prez debates, whoever the Dem candidate is should repeatedly bring this up on stage vs Trump hammering him over & over for details exposing his unwillingness for transparency. This and also bring to national attention buckets full of emoluments violations by Trump = using his office to make money off the American taxpayers. Tell it to the public in ads and in debates & watch him turn orange.
W/Trump nothing is ever certain & assuming he's not removed from office at trial, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he refused to debate the eventual dem nominee. He might think it's a better show of strength to basically say, "I'm POTUS, there was a witchhunt that exonerated me (not true), there was even an impeachment & I was exonerated (TBD), why should I go on stage to tussle w/some pathetic little dem?" He has nothing to gain. He does love to strut and preen, but he also likes to shock the status quo. His idol Putin doesn't have to debate given that he's a dictator. Why should he? He's DJT, POTUS & brilliant.
Watching the clip with Trump and plastic face Laura Ingrahm (the Fox Network may have the finest plastic surgeon on retainer in all of broadcast news) on Trump network earlier today proclaiming that he think's it's vital for future presidents that he invoke executive privilege was quite comical. I guess we're supposed to believe that Trump is now suddenly concerned for the future of not only the presidency but the republic too
This is exactly what he was tweeting in November when a federal judge ruled that the Exec can't override a subpoena (The Presidents are not kings ruling) - his concern was for future prezs. He was saying he WANTS testimony from patriots like Bolton while his DOJ was appealing the ruling. He'd be a lot more credible (if that's possible) if he could take a position & stick to it. He seems incapable of doing that.
Now, after repeatedly saying he WANTS a trial, witnesses, evidence, everything to prove he's done nothing wrong, he says on the eve of transmission of the Articles of Impeachment that he wants the Senate to dismiss them rather than have a trial. Hours earlier he said he wanted a trial to prove how harassed he's been. Sounds like running scared even though his removal from office seems highly unlikely.
Presumably, Pelosi will announce the HR managers who will prosecute the case in the Senate at 10 am today. Formalities follow w/a HR vote on the managers, engrossment of the Articles of Impeachment (declaraing it the final version), and transmission of the Articles to the Senate by walking it between House & Senate.
Pelosi didn't lose a thing by delaying this transmission. During the time between the HR vote to impeachment & today, Bolton publicly announced his willingness to testify, more emails re Trump's direct involvement w/Ukraine investigating the Bidens came to light, and constituents had to opportunity during the 2-week recess to let their senators know their expectations of comportment given that a trial would occur. Most importantly, there was significant coverage re The Rules - anyone who was interested learned that it was up to the Senate to set the rules, including witnesses, & a trial w/no witnesses is nothing short of a sham or cover-up. No one expected the delay in transmission to result in a different outcome where the Exec is removed from office.
I have noticed differences in articles I've read on the impeachment process. Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution says "And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present." as stated in the Senate website.
Other articles (none associated with Wikipedia) say that there has to be a majority vote of two thirds of the Senate.
Now, if only 9 Senators show up, would a vote of 6 be enough for a conviction as that this wold be two thirds of members present, or, does the entire Senate have to be present?
if some do not show up for the trial, but arrive for the vote, would they be barred from voting since they had not been present for the trial?
I know that some of this is dependent on the rules the Senate places on the trial, but is there precedent for it?
Also found this:
https://lawfareblog.com/imagining-senate-trial-reading-senate-rules-impeachment-litigation
OK, one more thing. If Trump is convicted, what are the appeals process?
OK, one more thing. If Trump is convicted, what are the appeals process?
As I've said before, I'm a lawyer with a strong interest in constitutional law not an impeachment scholar. It's an arcane topic & a little weird. The lawfare blog you cite is one of the most detailed best-guesses as to how things will unfold by someone who is a scholar.
Impeachment and trial are a legislative function. HR investigates, impeaches, and presents the case for impeachment at trial. The Senate sets the rules, considers the facts, and votes as to whether the charges rise to the level of removing the Exec from office. Theirs is the only vote that counts. The constitution is very specific as you note - 2/3 of those present. The end. No appeal.
The Senate generally doesn't meet or vote unless there's a quorum of 51 present. During Clinton's trial, CJ Rehnquist relied heavily on the Senate Parliamentarian as to protocol for conducting normal senate business & any deviation requires a vote. Because CJ Roberts clerked for Rehnquist & considered him a mentor, he's expected to behavior similarly.
Because the Senate sets rules for everything - like whether they're going to break at 12:30 pm or 1:00 pm - they can address the question you raise of attendance.
However, McConnell has announced that he expects ALL senators to be in attendance, in their seats, & quietly paying attention w/no cell phones throughout the entire trial. He & Schumer sent a letter to all senators today about decorum, access, and visitors during the trial. I've only seen it on twitter. I'm sure the text will be show up somewhere by tomorrow.
Hope that helps. Basically, the senate can make the rules as they go along - that's what McConnell wants to do about witnesses.
Would be nice to see a "guest appearance" by Lev Parnas, the guy that Trump claims he really doesn't know. The revelations w/in the last few days of notes, text messages, e-mails between Lev and Rudy are damming, but Moscow Mitch may attempt to not allow testimony by anyone. Hopefuly a few GOP Senators will have a sense of ethics and vote for testimony of witnesses.
Why not vote to dismiss as the entire thing is is a hoax, right?
Would be nice to see a "guest appearance" by Lev Parnas, the guy that Trump claims he really doesn't know. The revelations w/in the last few days of notes, text messages, e-mails between Lev and Rudy are damming, but Moscow Mitch may attempt to not allow testimony by anyone. Hopefuly a few GOP Senators will have a sense of ethics and vote for testimony of witnesses.
Why not vote to dismiss as the entire thing is is a hoax, right?
McConnell - who argued vigorously FOR witnesses in the Clinton trial - can't re-write his past arguments. I suspect whoever is a witness will be treated exactly as w/Clinton - closed door testimony under oath before a handful of select individuals of which "relevant" portions are allowed before the whole senate. I don't think the charming Mr. Parnas will be among them although I suspect he'd be highly entertaining.
I doubt McConnell will authorize a motion to dismiss - especially since Trump changes his mind hourly as to whether he wants a full trial that will prove his innocence (wonder if he really believes that) or a quick exoneration (wonder if he really believes that, too).
Today Pelosi said she hoped the Senate will honor their oath. If that's what she was banking on, then this was a complete waste of time.
Pelosi gets to Trump like no one else. Quotes like that plus her handing out ceremonial pens used at signing the Articles of Impeachment on camera rev him up.
This should never be considered a waste of time or money. It's a constitutional process that separates us from the Russians, Chinese, N. Koreans, and dictators everywhere. When evidence of wrong-doing by the Exec is brought to the attention of the HR, investigated to the extent it could even though hampered by the Exec's ordering key witnesses to act in contempt of Congress and refused to produce subpoened documents, and a vote taken that there is sufficient merit to warrant a senate trial, the constitution and democracy are working. Whatever the outcome, the HR followed its obligations. We have an Exec who has been told by the judiciary that he's not god or above the law and a legislature that exercised its oversight role. It's reassuring to citizens to know that the constitution hasn't been gutted.
The steps in the impeachment process explained.
https://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-senate-impeachment-trial-timeline-220930153.html
McConnell’s brilliant statement on Nancy’s “golden pens on silver platters”
By M. Dowling -January 16, 2020
The signing of the Articles of Impeachment took place on a table with a political slogan on it, Mitch McConnell noted today on the floor of the Senate. The Senate Majority Leader said that Speaker Pelosi gave out souvenirs, “golden pens on silver platters,” as he painted a picture of a garish atmosphere.
The Speaker claimed for weeks that impeachment was a most serious and somber affair. She was very prayerful, according to her. McConnell called her on her hypocrisy.
“Nothing says seriousness and sobriety like handing out souvenirs,” McConnell said of the partisan process.
It was partisan from beginning to end, the Leader said, which is why they rushed the process in the House and denied the President due process.
[It was like a Carnival, but they are clowns.]
The Speaker didn’t find anything strange about handing out souvenirs during only the third presidential impeachment in history, McConnell asserted.
The Senate was empowered to serve as a check against a factionalized government, he reminded the members. McConnell talked of “animosities” and “animal instincts” the Senate is meant to keep at bay. The House’s hour is over and it’s time for the Senate to fulfill their purpose.
McConnell quoted Alexander Hamilton: “the demon of faction will, at certain seasons, extend his scepter over all numerous bodies of men.”
I keep looking at those pens very closely and don't see "Trump Impeachment 2020" written on them anywhere. I fail to see how this is somehow proof of partisanship. It's not like she met with the accused to plot out a strategy for the trial or anything.
Hard to believe that a grown man is focused on pens instead of the President of the United States working with foreign adversaries to attack other Americans.
There was a woman reporter from Fox who noted the pens in the video of the formal signing. I don't know if that's their habit to focus on such trivia. It's SOP in government, law, and Wall Street to hand out duplicate pens of those used in the signing of significant documents. LBJ provided as many as 75 pens for documents he signed that were deemed to be of particular significance. I'm sure McConnell has quite a collection himself after 35 years in the senate. Where's the story?
Hard to believe that a grown man is focused on pens instead of the President of the United States working with foreign adversaries to attack other Americans.
He's going straight to the heart and matter as well as depth and substance of impeachment. IT'S THE PENS.
Hard to believe that a grown man is focused on pens instead of the President of the United States working with foreign adversaries to attack other Americans.
He's going straight to the heart and matter as well as depth and substance of impeachment. IT'S THE PENS.
No kidding...It's uncanny just how similar the content Goob's posts are to what a bot would post....Come to think of it, bot's are far more sophisticated.
Enough with the damn pens - I just had to delete some real bad jokes.
I don't remember posting any in here.
The dems have been talking about this since before the inauguration.
He spends his day reading stories about himself and responding to them on Twitter, doing what we're doing here in the Whipping Post, which is beyond sad to say about the President of the United States. We've all been talking about it since 2015 because it was obvious to detect his personality disorders that are a threat to national security. You want to direct the conversation towards policy or values, when you know damn well it's about his fragile and dangerous mental state. That you don't want better for the leader of our country is suprising. I would think someone who loves this country would want someone like Reagan, Bush Sr, or Bush Jr - men with dignity, integrity, and kindness, not this slop we have now.
[Edited on 12/18/2019 by Skydog32103]
Well said....I would only add that watching the party of Reagan/Bush/ the past near four years now and how it has allowed this to happen is the second scariest part of this entire reign of the American Caligula.
And so ends forever the lie that they, the Republican party, are more concerned about "National Security." Seriously, they can not carry that torch any longer.
My jokes . Cant delete other peoples jokes
OK.
So, McConnell's plan is for the senators to sleep through the trial according to his Organizing Rules. Each side gets 24 hours to present their arguments - over 2 days!!!! That's 12 hours of argument per day. Clinton's trial was 24 hours of arguments over 4 days for each side - 6 hours/day. Since the trial day starts at 1 pm that means they'll meet until 1 am. assuming there are no breaks.
I predict some pushback on that. I can't see 100 senators sitting silently in their seats w/o their phones for 12 hours/day.
For anyone willing to wade through them, the HR case for removal of office and Trump's defense case are both available online. Both are more than 100 pages, but the body of the HR case is in the first 50 pages. The defense ony has a few pages of Appendix.
These written documents are essentially what each side will argue during the trial. The HR case lays out what Trump did that is impeachable, the evidence gathered in hearings that support it, and provides a history of impeachment & why the Founders were so adamantly in favor of having such a mechanism. It comes down to if the Justice Dept believes that a sitting president can't be indicted and the president refuses to comply w/subpoenas, then he considers himself above the law. The other key point is that the Founders feared interference by foreign governments in US governance & a president inviting foreign governments to interfere in elections is precisely why impeachment exists.
The defense case doesn't really address facts. It relies on the premise that the president did those things, but we don't believe it matters. It also repeats the fictional concept that the trial is about overturning election results; that is a complete fabrication. The election results put a president in office; impeachment is the mechanism by which a duly elected president who violates the constitution and/or his office can be removed. The Founders are very clear about that, having lived under mercurial kings with lifetime reigns & feared foreign governments interfering in governance when the king was weak.
Prof. Alan Dershowitz, who's been back-tracking about being on the defense team since accepting Trump's invitation to join, is trying to distance himself from the written defense case. He's even trying to pretend he's not part of the defense team - just a specialist on one topic. This is a man who defended Jeffrey Epstein, OJ Simpson, Klaus von Bulow, and Mike Tyson so he's not squeamish about his client; he's embarrassed by the weakness or lack of a credible defense argument.
I read the documents because even CSPAN coverage is unclear. Who knows what we'll actually see.
So, McConnell's plan is for the senators to sleep through the trial according to his Organizing Rules. Each side gets 24 hours to present their arguments - over 2 days!!!! That's 12 hours of argument per day. Clinton's trial was 24 hours of arguments over 4 days for each side - 6 hours/day. Since the trial day starts at 1 pm that means they'll meet until 1 am. assuming there are no breaks.
I predict some pushback on that. I can't see 100 senators sitting silently in their seats w/o their phones for 12 hours/day.
Also saw where Mitch is working with Trump White House to take measures so that any potential testimony by Bolton is not seen by the public.
If Trump is so innocent, why are such measures being taken to not let the "picture of truth" be presented and seen by the American public and at reasonable hours of the day? Seems Mitch & the GOP are complicit in coverup and obstruction - no better than Trump.
Also saw where Mitch is working with Trump White House to take measures so that any potential testimony by Bolton is not seen by the public.
If Trump is so innocent, why are such measures being taken to not let the "picture of truth" be presented and seen by the American public and at reasonable hours of the day? Seems Mitch & the GOP are complicit in coverup and obstruction - no better than Trump.
The defense isn't that Trump is innocent; it's that who cares? or as they desperately hunted for some legal reason to present, they came up w/the argument that an impeachable offense must be a crime - completely undercut by the writings of Hamilton, Mason, Madison, and Jefferson - never mind that obstructing justice IS a crime.
Indeed. By taking the "hide Bolton measure" in co-operation w/the WH, he's already violated the oath he took Friday to be impartial. Blatantly. McConnell is taking a very risky position to be Trump's lackey for someone who once was respected if not for his policies at least his leadership going back to Trump's earliest days in office. McConnell has money & can retire; why sully himself? This is when my imagination goes to he's afraid of Trump's ally Putin & how human obstacles to his goals end up dead.
I just listened to the amendment Schumer wants entered into the record. It was well written. After it was read, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell asked for a recess.
He wants the amendment tabled.
Some have complained about the trial starting at 1 pm and running for 12 hours. I see nothing wrong there. They can get sleep get up at a reasonable time, have breakfast between 10 and 11 or an early lunch, a dinner break and not deal with traffic and stress.
The House made compelling reasons why the State Department should be subpoenaed to turn over specific documents related to proving the first article of impeachment. The Senate voted against that. The State Department looks guilty of covering up for the President.
Pelosi has a kick ass group of Managers on this trial.
[Edited on 1/21/2020 by gina]
You folks should be watching this trial. It is incredible.
Go to https://thehill.com
It's worse than Watergate in collusion allegations. It is scary.
Recess till 8 pm. Mitch McConnell just keeps wanting to table amendments Schumer is submitting to subpoena the entities of the State Dept., The OEMB [budget], Nick Mulvaney. Valerie Demings, Mr. Crow, and even Adam Schiff are on top of their stuff. The Republican lawyer, Mr. Sekulow could not adequately counter any of what was said. Out of desperation he said "where's that whistleblower?". This trial is like a grand jury/military court martial.
[Edited on 1/22/2020 by gina]
[Edited on 1/22/2020 by gina]
