Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR):
Huh. I didn’t realize that either. I have only dim memories of the Clinton impeachment. I’ll probably pay more attention this time.
McConnell will oversee the process for creating the rules for how to conduct the trial.
Those rules will, per the Constitution, require that someone from the House is able to lead the case of the Prosecution and that Justice Roberts, nominally, run the show but they could implement a rule like that the Senate has to vote (simple majority) for whether to allow a witness to testify, which evidence to allow in trial, etc. They get to choose whether the defense or prosecution goes first. Overall, they could set things up to significantly handicap the House manager.
“Founding Founders”? Really? Now we have to live that as a nation, ffs. (Page 11). You can do better than that, Mr. Schiff.
I liked this. Nicely worded.
If that is your only complaint - you really have nonthing at all.
:rolleyes:
I’ve been out of the loop of late - Why didn’t Schiff call Parnas? Did the revelations about Nunes Come after the end of the hearings? Oh to watch Nunes have to sit there while Dems questioned Parnas about Nunes would just make my year.
Agreed. I can’t imagine Reich being right about that. Any criminal proceedings against a former president after he leaves office are entirely separate and independent of any impeachment proceedings, as best as I can make of it.
It’s some nice wishful thinking, though.
In one of these hate-Trump (not that I have a problem with that) threads, there was a link to an investigative article about the Nunes dairy farm operations in Iowa, speculating on the suspected skullduggery there and their secretiveness.
(Here it is again: Devin Nunes’s Family Farm Is Hiding a Politically Explosive Secret ETA: Ryan Lizza, Esquire, Sept. 30, 2018.)
I would also wish for Schiff to call Devin Nunes’s cows. ALL of them. I think they would have some interesting moos to tell.
(The “politically explosive secret”, of course, is that they probably hire undocumented farm worker. ALL the farmers in farm-country do, and everybody knows it. ETA: It’s just that the Nunes family is more aggressively and threatingly secretive about it.)
Serious question. I don’t see the bolded part in the constitution. Where is it? I’m guessing I’m missing it.
The NY Times has offered a discussion of procedure. I’m not sure if it’s paywalled, but I got in without a subscription.
In short, they indicate that the House (at least as it was done for Clinton) appoints “managers” to represent the House as the prosecution.
Incidentally, it also says that the Senators can ask questions. I’m not sure how “speechy” such questions can get, however.
Note that none of this is actually in the constitution.
No, apparently it comes from the Senate rules. I was wrong.
But I have seen articles talking about how the rules for impeachment in the Senate, this go-round, will need to be determined and voted on.
All Senate rules can be changed but my current take is that there are some rules that the Senate generally accepts as sacred and some that are transitory, being created on the spot and then ditched. The majority of impeachment rules are in the latter bucket.
But it does seem to be that the House Management setup is an accepted rule and that it is a rule that Roberts will be the one to decide what evidence to accept reject.
It seems that McConnell’s ability to hold a kangaroo court is somewhat minimized. He could get those rules changed but it’s a harder push to accomplish.
Personally, I think that McConnell should be smart enough to realize that Trump will consider a second term to be a green light to start ignoring his handlers, and start destroying everything he can get his hands on. If he’s not aware of that and not doing everything he can to get Trump out of the office before 2021, then Mitch is guilty of an overinflated belief in his abilities.
You can manage people who are rational. With addicts, you can manage them for a while but eventually they go nuts. Trump’s addiction is headlines with his name in them (pro or con) and the rush of trying to get away with things that he’s not supposed to do.
I read the NY times article earlier because of trying to research Sage Rat’s assertion. I’m aware of most of the procedures that are thought to accompany this process, but I read the constitution to see what was mandated and couldn’t find where the house being manager’s was specified. I thought I was missing it. Thanks for the clarification.
Fox News: Devin Nunes sues CNN for $435M over ‘false and defamatory’ Ukraine story
This is about CNN reporting Lev Parnas’ lawyer’s statement that his client would be willing to tell Congress that Nunes met with ex-Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in Vienna to get dirt on Biden. Nunes denies this happened.
He can deny anything he likes. ISTM that he only has a cause of action if he intends to show that Parnas’s lawyer didn’t make the statement that CNN reported that he made.
This isn’t twitter, so I hope that his SLAPP lawsuit gets him and his legal team SLAPPed. Hard.
I read an article a few days ago about this. Apparently, one can choose the state in which you want to file the suit. Nunes files these suits in Virginia and Iowa, states that don’t have anti-SLAPP laws.
Devin Nunes Has Filed a Very Weird Lawsuit Against Ryan Lizza mentions suit in Iowa.
Devin Nunes Drops One Ridiculous Lawsuit, Only To File Another One mentions two suits in Virginia.
Nunes, of course, has been chatting a lot to Giuliani and Parnas, according to phone records.
But Kevin McCarthy says it’s all good. Nothing to see here.
Here’s a weird question: if a person knowingly and incorrectly calls a news report “false and defamatory,” does the media outlet in question have reasonable grounds for a slander suit?
No link, but just saw on Foxnews that this only proves that Nunes’ phone was connected to Parnas. We still have no evidence that Nunes spoke with Parnas.
No. Seriously. They went with that explanation.