How do you know this?
Come on.
According to the website quoted earlier in the thread, this is based on
What are you arguing about, here? You seem to believe I’ve hung some argument (which?) on some issue about “witnesses.” Can you quote whatever argument it is that you think I made about “witnesses”?
The entire back-and-forth stems from a claim (and this is a paraphrase) that it would be a great idea for the House to vote on articles of impeachment as soon as possible so that the impeachment process can be moved over to the Senate, where Mitch McConnell will be powerless to stop John Roberts from organizing the trial and its components in such a way that it will be devastating to Trump’s reputation.
That claim has yet to be supported.
All we’re getting, instead, is demands for me to cite cases in which witnesses got the exact same amount of time, or perhaps cases in which witnesses didn’t get the exact same amount of time. Or something. Anyway, that challenge is extremely serious and I had better find those citations ASAP!!1!!!
How about you re-state your claim as to why it would be a great thing if the impeachment process moved over to the Senate as soon as possible, clearly and unambiguously? Then we can all look at that claim, as well as any citations in support of it you might be able to provide.
Otherwise it looks as though you’re just flailing away in a combative and belligerent manner, in an attempt to distract from the fact that your claim is vague and hazy.
I’ve used up my quota of articles from the Wall Street Journal, but this should be pretty clear,even from just the lede.
And did you miss this part from my first cite?
If the Chief Justice gets to wear gold stripes on his robe for a normal impeachment, how much gold does he get to wear for a Trump impeachment? Like, a really excessive amount, to give the whole thing extra class?
Not gold. Orange.
Yeah, that works. 
Apparently so. My bad.
OK:
Like I said, I think the number of witnesses who are called to testify on the Senate floor during the impeachment trial itself will be zero, so witnesses will be a non-issue.
My point was to dispense with this non-issue and move on. Looks like that makes two of us now, so we’re good.
I have never made that claim, but I’m not sure how it’s germane to our discussion of who would run an impeachment trial if one was to occur.
You have been saying that your statements about how the trial would be run are based on precedent, while mine are merely opinions.
That means you have citations to support your claims about how the trial would be run, right? Oh, but you can’t be bothered to share them with us. Imagine my disappointment. 
My claim is vague and hazy because it doesn’t exist.
Seriously, are you confusing me with someone else?
What I have said on the subject of timing is that in Watergate, the time it took between House Resolution 803 which authorized the impeachment investigation, passed on 2/6/74, and the House Judiciary Committee vote on the first article of impeachment (Obstruction of Justice) on 7/27/74, was 5 months and 21 days, and it didn’t seem like a greater length of time would be necessary for the current Congress to cover the same procedural ground. I think I’ve said it would be a good idea for impeachment to be over, for better or worse, by the end of 2019, and there’s no reason why that couldn’t be the case if Pelosi & Co. got their act together now. But that’s really the extent of what I’ve said about timing, as far as I can remember.
He’ll wear a gold robe, feather boa, and a red MAGA baseball hat.
I would expect that the prosecution would have its time to present testimony and cite the hearing minutes of the House. The defense will simply say, “fuck it, let’s vote cause we know damn well they don’t have 67 on their side”
Yeah, something like that.
No, what I’ve said is that the record doesn’t show a Chief Justice “running” the Senate handling of impeachment—merely presiding over the trial. Accordingly, claims (made by you or anyone else) that Mitch McConnell would be helpless to stop John Roberts from making sure charges against Trump got a full hearing in the Senate, were hooey.
Of course the claim that Mitch would stand by feebly with no say over the organization of the Senate handling of the impeachment, was made in aid of arguments that the House should ‘get on with it’ and vote to impeach ASAP, so that the matter could move over to the Senate----because that would (according to this theory) be very bad for Trump and very good for those who want Trump gone.
And that theory is, in a word, ridiculous.
I don’t say that you have presented this full argument, but whatever it is you HAVE been arguing about here seems to be centered around supporting the ‘vote impeachment as soon as possible because the Senate treatment of impeachment will be bad for Trump.’
(You say ‘get it over with in 2019’ in this post to which I reply. And that implies that you feel it’s fine for the Senate to be able to take its acquittal vote in late 2019 or early 2020—which carries the implication that that won’t be a significant and material help to Trump’s re-election chances. I can’t see how being able to trumpet an acquittal could possibly fail to help Trump. Of course it will help him. My citation: common sense.)
The citations I’ve offered have shown that the fantasy about John Roberts “running” (to use your word; (my highlighting)) the impeachment process in the Senate is unsupported by the historical record and by the Senate rules. Nowhere do we see a Chief Justice doing more than preside. And no, Virginia, “presides over” is not the same thing as “runs.”
The major question here—superseding all squabbling over citations and the meaning of ‘preside,’ is:
CHOICE S: should the House vote on impeachment and send those articles over to the Senate as soon as possible, or at least within five months and twenty-one days (to use your benchmark), even though GOP Senators are still likely to acquit Trump—and thereby give him the great and powerful triumph of Total Vindication?
CHOICE T: Or, instead, should the House proceed with the same hearings that Choice S people would probably approve, but carry on with them until enough voters are calling their GOP Senators to tell them “convict or you’ll lose your seat”—so as to have a good hope of conviction instead of acquittal?
You do seem to feel that ‘vote impeachment and send it over to the Senate and who cares if Trump gets vindicated’ is a reasonable position, and I have to confess that surprises me (as a long-time reader of your posts). However, it is what it is.
“Seems to be centered around.”
I’m not seeing anything here that’s worth arguing with anymore. You’re just bullshitting because you don’t have a genuine argument to make against me, just against the guy who must’ve made that other argument that mine is ‘centered around’ even though I’m opposed to it.
Good golly miss Molly, what trash. I’m getting the fuck out of this back-and-forth with you because it’s like arguing with a robocall. Screw this.
The smarter politics is to shut up about impeachment and just investigate. Then some more. Lay it out for the people to see, then the next. Just the truth, don’t listen to snarky sarcasm from smartasses like us, make a point of refusing to exaggerate.
Right now, seems fairly clear to me that most people don’t want to deal with that. The truth may change that, but it isn’t guaranteed. If the truth won’t do it, nothing else will, or at least nothing else should. Like I’ve said a million times, don’t exaggerate.
The correct political line is both effective and shrewd, to wit: “I remain uncertain about impeachment until more facts are revealed through investigation. The President will have every opportunity to explain his actions, and we welcome his cooperation.”
Not everybody, of course. Dems need a few blazing shit-disturbers, keep 'em honest.
I have a genuine argument to make (which can be seen in most of my posts here, but particularly as summarized near the end of post #390). An argument against you was never something I pursued; I did attempt to rebut false claims made in the thread about the role John Roberts would be playing in a Senate trial.
That you took this so personally is disappointing.
Yes, I agree.
The attempts to goad Democrats into voting impeachment NOW (via accusations of cowardice, self-protection, etc.) may be coming from some who are sincere. But it’s quite possible that a large proportion of them come from people who want to see Trump remain in office for years to come. And there’s probably a contingent who are sincere but poorly informed. I know I’ve seen some on Twitter who still believe that “impeachment” is removal—that Nancy Pelosi has the power to remove Trump by calling for a vote (and they’re enraged that she isn’t doing so).
Keep impeachment firmly on the table, but make informing the public of Trump’s wrongdoing job one. And as you say, maintain an open invitation to Trump to explain his actions.
Here’s the deal: if you post to a thread, even in response to someone else, other people get to take issue with what you said. They don’t even have to take on the entirety of your argument, just any assertions they find room to disagree with.
As far as “false claims made in the thread about the role John Roberts would be playing in a Senate trial,” we seem to be at loggerheads. You think I’m just spouting off opinions, but what if I am? If you don’t provide some sort of cite that you’re doing more than that (which is what you’ve claimed), you’re doing the same.
FWIW, I’m not taking this personally at all. But there comes a time when further debate with someone is useless because they’re throwing nonsense around in place of argument. So I think we’re done here - or at least, I’m done with you, within the context of this thread.
Sounds like a plan.
As always, I trust that readers can sort out what’s going on, in any particular back-and-forth.
I read somewhere that the House has more power in an impeachment than they do in a run-of-the mill investigation (though I don’t know what the difference is). If so, perhaps they should call it an “impeachment” and just hold hearings without a vote up until the election, perhaps voting on impeachment (and impeaching) in late October.
…so today was a hell-of-a-day, wasn’t it?
A question for those who based on “everything that had happened up until last week” did not support impeachment: is there a “line in the sand?” Is it “no impeachment, but if this happens then…” or is it simply “no impeachment ever?”
Because as bad as everything has been this week, things are going to get worse next week. We’ve got Trump-and-co launching lawsuits to stop banks handing over records. Barr isn’t returning to testify tomorrow. The administration is now just flat-out refusing oversight.
And things are going to get worse than this.
Its all accelerating. The government has been purged of almost everyone who had the ability to say “no” to this President. Even Jeff Sessions looked fucking good in the Mueller Report compared to Barr: but Sessions is gone now.
So is it “never impeach” and we will see you at the next election, or is there something that Trump could do now that is worse than anything he’s done already that would make you change your mind?
I think congressional Republicans are at the point now where Trump could defy a Supreme Court order and skate.
The 2020 election is going to be beyond your worst nightmares no matter how the counting goes.
What do y’all think the odds are of the Dem nominee (whoever) being under criminal investigation by September 2020, this investigation being initiated by the White House and approved by AG Barr and FBI Director Wray?
I’ll go with 75%.