So… can it be construed that the President of the United States and/or his personal attorney were involved on arranging a hit on a sitting ambassador?
Mike Flynn withdraws plea agreement.
You scared me there, John. I thought by “hit” you meant assassination, what with the U.S. recently going around assassinating people and all. Then I read “Yovanovitch” and assumed you meant “fired”. Phew! That’s old news.
Then I read your second link.
I reserve the right to judge the intent of those text messages at a later date.
~Max
I cannot think of any professional frame of reference where such language is used.
Can you please unwind whatever this is about? I’m not grasping it from these tweets. Something about Yavanovitch blahblah
The Senate rules while sitting as a Court of Impeachment are different that the standing rules. A filibuster would only be allowed if the impeachment rules permit it, and that I am unsure about.
Flynn REQUESTS to withdraw his plea. The judge would have to grant the motion for that to happen. But I bet that won’t happen.
When a judge takes a plea, they ask a series of questions regarding the plea to establish that it meets the legal standard (“knowing, intelligent, and voluntary”). Questions like, “did you have enough time to read the plea paperwork?” “Did anybody make any promises, other than what’s in writing, to get you to accept the plea?” “Are you satisfied with your representation?”
The judge is going to be quite hostile to this request. Unless he can show that there was some factual error in the plea, I doubt he’ll get the request granted.
On top of which (as I’m sure you already know), Judge Emmet Sullivan has pretty much had it up to his gullet with Flynn. I wouldn’t be surprised if he denied the motion to withdraw the plea, then immediately advanced the sentencing date to “forthwith.” I wouldn’t blame him a bit.
No problem.
The House released a tranche of documents from Lev Parnas today:
** Trump supporter and Giuliani associate discussed surveilling Yovanovitch**
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/politics/robert-hyde-marie-yovanovitch/index.html
Analysis:
https://twitter.com/AmbDana/status/1217234294726451200?s=19
(Embedded link in quote takes you to House files.)
The Senate is invoking the Clinton impeachment rules as their guiding star, under the “fair’s fair” doctrine. So if nobody could filibuster then (and I’m sure somebody would have tried such a thing and we’d know about it), I feel safe asserting that nobody will be able to do it this time.
That said, there’s been no vote on the Senate’s rules for this impeachment, so we’ll see what clever stuff gets added or not by the majority.
I’m not exactly sure what the Clinton rules were but, suspecting that the Republicans held the majority in the Senate at the time, expectation would be that they allow for the majority to decide most things.
I suspect that there are worse rulesets that could have been adopted but I doubt that it’s a wonderfully friendly to the minority.
On the other hand, it’s probably quite aggressive towards the executive branch should the majority vote that they want something from the executive branch. You don’t need all that many defectors for a majority on the left.
I admit that it’s a reach to decisively say what the specifics were, but you can get a private eye to follow someone here in the United States. So I would expect that they are talking about something more nefarious than stalking if the one guy is astonished about what can be arranged in Ukraine.
A majority should decide most things in any representative body. That’s not a sneaky Republican thing.
Also the Clinton rules passed 100-0.
If you read me to say that there’s something sneaky, then that had little to do with the words that I wrote. As said, there are probably worse rulesets that could have been passed. I expect that we got the Clinton rules because Collins, Romney, etc. were able to force something that they felt was sufficient onto McConnell.
And while, yes, a majority should decide most things in a representative body, that’s only if the representatives are empowered to perform their job honestly and in good faith. If two thirds of them were voting with a gun to the back of their heads, as an extreme example, then, clearly, the results of a vote would not be meaningful. The theoretical underpinnings of the structure of our government actually matter as more than words. Following the words studiously in some situation where it was clear that the actual intent of the founders was being flagrantly ignored is just ceremonial Consitutionalism not actual Constitutionalism. You don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the underlying philosophy you want to adhere to. There’s more to it than “majority rules”. Preventing the majority from, simply, ruling the day was in fact one of the key goals of how things were structured.
The Senate Rules Committee is going to limit press access to Senators during any impeachment trial.
It’s fine – they’ll get plenty of opportunities to ask testing questions at the white house press briefings.
It’s funny, but it’s sad.
OK then, I’ve gone and answered my own question. Looking at Rule XXIV from the Clinton impeachment trial, I don’t think there’s room for a filibuster.
“XXIV. All the orders and decisions may be acted upon without objection, or, if objection is heard, the orders and decisions shall be voted on without debate by yeas and nays, which shall be entered on the record, subject, however, to the operation of Rule VII, except when the doors shall be closed for deliberation, and in that case no Member shall speak more than once on one question, and for not more than ten minutes on an interlocutory question, and for not more than fifteen minutes on the final question, unless by consent of the Senate, to be had without debate; but a motion to adjourn may be decided without the yeas and nays, unless they be demanded by one-fifth of the Members present. The fifteen minutes herein allowed shall be for the whole deliberation on the final question, and not on the final question on each article of impeachment.”
From page 10 (PDF page 15) of this document: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-106sdoc2/pdf/CDOC-106sdoc2.pdf
~Max
The House impeachment manages will be:
Adam Schiff
Jerry Nadler
Val Demings
Zoe Lofgren
Hakeem Jeffries
Jason Crow
Sylvia Garcia
How do you suggest we determine how many and which Senators have a gun to their head? If you could somehow objectively determine that some Senators do, in fact, have a proverbial gun to their head, how do you suggest we proceed from there?