Only in the technical sense that yes Republican and Democratic Senators would have to vote for it. That doesn’t mean that Dems are required to act in a bipartisan manner to achieve it. Republican Senators are not going to be more likely to convict because House Democrats played fair. They’ll only vote to convict if the public turns hard on Trump and House Dems have, wisely in my opinion, decided the only way to turn opinion is to strongly control the impeachment procedure.
The House rules you presented seemed to reference questioning witnesses that were already in front of the House, not the ability for the minority party to issue subpoenas in the first place. Do I have that wrong? Because I know that minority House members have been questioning witnesses in the House.
Yes, biartisanship is a pipe dream. Bipartisanship has been stabbed, poisoned, shot and pushed off a bridge. The body has been encased in concrete and shot into the sun.
So. Given that, there is no purpose whatsoever in even pretending. Just get on with it, arrest Trump co-conspirators, and let others commit obstruction of justice. Present the case as if you’re presenting it to the American people, not the Republican Senators who have been INSTRUCTED to make up their minds before the evidence has even been collected.
ETA; Also what CarnalK said
This is the salient thing. It’s not a grand jury. Or even a trial. (Yet.)
We’ve clearly witnessed over the last couple of years that Former President Trump* cannot be reasoned with. Laws? Rules? Protocols? Civility? Those are for suckers and losers.
I’m trying to rationalize the President’s strategy. He may be an idiot, but I am assuming that his lawyers aren’t. Do you have a counterargument?
And what is the consequence, aside from impeachment, if he doesn’t? Without a consequence, there is no obligation.
There are only two major checks on the Presidency. One is from the Judicial branch, which may rule that the President violated the Constitution. The other is from the Legislative branch, which may impeach and convict the President. Only one of these checks have teeth.
If the Supreme Court rules that the president must comply, that’s something else. We haven’t gotten that far. I said that “the President is within his power to refuse [to comply with a subpoena] on even the flimsiest of grounds until the courts strike down those grounds.”
~Max
Or he’s using Ukraine’s vulnerable position vis-a-vis Russia to extort the favor. But bribery and extortion are two sides of the same coin, so six of one.
Anyway, bribery is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The last eight words of Article II. So there’s no argument about whether bribery is one of those “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” because it doesn’t have to be. It’s specifically spelled out.
I would rather the precedent not be set this way, but that’s jointly the House and Mr. Trump’s decision, not mine.
Then everything I argue is moot and the president deserves to be convicted. But that’s an equally huge assumption - the exact inverse - as the one I make.
~Max
This strategy will backfire on voters like me, who place heavy value on fairness and reject consequentialism.
~Max
Given that I’ve been hearing Republican lawyers, and the attorneys for previous administrations, calling the letter “bananas,” “a temper tantrum,” "completely backwards, and the like–given that one said the biggest surprise in the letter was that an attorney would put his name on it–I’m not sure how much time I need to spend looking for a counterargument. People that understand the law far better than I do are saying that this is a blatantly unprofessional document that was almost certainly demanded by an out-of-control client.
No, you’re saying the House shouldn’t even be able to try to put together a rock solid case, because the president can just refuse to cooperate based on a huge assumption that they won’t ever be able to put together a rock solid case.
It’s completely circular logic, see?
You’re arguing that exposing corruption is unfair?
This is technically true and not especially interesting. In the same way, I’m within my power to shoot a man on main street until the police arrest me.
That’s the way they should be framing it. Bribery and “power of the purse” are easier for the public to grasp and literally spelled out in the Constitution.
Assume that the Supreme Court refuses to get involved before the 2020 election or rules in favor of the President’s noncompliance. Also assume that without compliance the Democrats can’t build a case on the Ukraine call. They fall back to what–obstruction of justice? Do you think the Republicans going to convict on obstruction of justice when the President says he would comply in an instant if the Republicans were allowed to participate?
~Max
I’m not going to assume all that. Some of the whistleblowers will testify. And if all your assumptions come to pass, it’s hopeless anyway and acting bipartisan isn’t going to change anything.
I’m not reading it that way, JT. From your link:
Unless the House committee was going to take a sudden vacation en masse to, say, Belarus, I wouldn’t have counted on getting depositions from these characters.
Most of the letter is bananas, and I’m only possibly on board with two or three small excerpts. But if you want to dismiss the entire letter with a wave of your hand, why did you ask if “there’s any page that isn’t full of lies”? If you weren’t interested in having that rhetorical question answered, you could have said so earlier.
~Max
Welp, I filled out forms to both my senators and my rep proclaiming my support to impeach the president. Here’s what NC Senator Tom Tillis sent back.
At least he responded. Whistleblowers are considered “second hand information,” and Trump’s open appeal to China for Biden dirt doesn’t apply. Nope, no partisanship here.
We’ll see when it comes time for them to appear before the Committee.
That’s not what I’m saying.
The House shouldn’t even try to put together a rock solid case without the appearance of bipartisanship, because the president can just refuse to cooperate based on the apparent lack of bipartisanship.
~Max