### Author:  [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/401 "2020-01-28T00:31:41Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#):
>
> I couldn’t watch it today. Reading the comments here, my simple question is: did the defense bring up Anything that was not a total non-sequitur from what Trump is accused of?
No mention yet of Chewbacca, at least.
---
### Author:  [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/402 "2020-01-28T01:40:34Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#):
>
> Senate Republicans:
>
> “The impeachment case lacks eyewitnesses. There is nothing new here!”
>
> Also Senate Republicans:
>
> “No, we refuse to listen to any eyewitnesses, and will ignore what Bolton says”
Well, to quote Captain Penny’s immortal adage:
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time—_but you can’t fool your mom_.”
---
### Author:  [@MulderMuffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MulderMuffin)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/403 "2020-01-28T01:46:53Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#):
>
> I couldn’t watch it today. Reading the comments here, my simple question is: did the defense bring up Anything that was not a total non-sequitur from what Trump is accused of?
There best argument I heard from a Senator (at least it made sense and was relatively honest) was that it didn’t really matter what he thought, he wasn’t voting based on what he thinks, he’s voting based on what his constituents want, because he is there to represent them.
The lawyers? I got nothing. Impeachment bad, Bidens bad, Democrats bad, don’t look over here, there’s nothing to see, not enough evidence, no need for witnesses. That about sums it up.
---
### Author:  [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/404 "2020-01-28T02:06:47Z")
The guy before Cippilone (didn’t catch his name, listening on the radio) came across as pretty sharp and legally reasonable. He Did directly address the case against Trump with his decent argument that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are not impeachable because they are not formal crimes.
I didn’t buy it, but at least he wasn’t going on about Hunter Biden. How can impoundment of military aid to leverage a foreign government into throwing mud into our election not be impeachable? It is the kind of tyrranical act the Founders were wary of.
How can obstruction of Congress not be impeachable? Executive privilege does not extend to covering up wrongdoing, and what is the point of separation of powers if the Executive can utterly shut out Congressional oversight? Equal, separate branches of government are the foundation of the system.
So, I didn’t buy it, but that guy at least sounded qualified to address the Senate.
---
### Author:  [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/405 "2020-01-28T02:46:20Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#):
>
> The guy before Cippilone (didn’t catch his name, listening on the radio) came across as pretty sharp and legally reasonable. He Did directly address the case against Trump with his decent argument that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are not impeachable because they are not formal crimes.
> \
I couldn’t bring myself to watch the “defense” today, but if I had to guess, you were listening to Dershowitz. My understanding is that he was taking on this particular bit of misdirection. It’s flat wrong and you are wise to disregard it. Individuals subject to impeachment have been impeached and removed for non-crimes, and individuals have committed crimes that are not impeachable offenses.
Here is a good explanation from [Lawfare](https://www.lawfareblog.com/must-impeachable-offenses-be-violations-criminal-code).
It’s worth remembering that there were zero criminal statutes on the books at the time the Constitution was written. None. They hadn’t been written yet. So it’s quite disingenuous for Republicans to pretend the Framers could have referenced specific crimes for which impeachment would apply. They gave a couple examples, such as bribery and treason, assuming we could figure it out from there. Sadly, by no stretch of the imagination could they picture the ignorance of the Trump Era.
---
### Author:  [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/406 "2020-01-28T02:47:03Z")
flipping channels and saw “Dems Impeachment torn to shreds” I wonder what news channel that was?
---
### Author:  [@mundylion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mundylion)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/407 "2020-01-28T03:43:43Z")
> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> [https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1XU2VX](https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1XU2VX)
Thanks for that though I’m not sure what it says. She testified at a closed-door hearing that there had been no contact (?) but has since found out that lower level staff members had communications with lower level Ukrainian staff inquiring about the aid. This she related in a second (?) appearance before a house committee. Sounds rather routine to me.
---
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/408 "2020-01-28T04:21:16Z")
I am agog at such prodigious talent displayed so casually! How did you manage to type that while waving your hands?
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/409 "2020-01-28T04:41:28Z")
> [@mundylion](#):
>
> Thanks for that though I’m not sure what it says. She testified at a closed-door hearing that there had been no contact (?) but has since found out that lower level staff members had communications with lower level Ukrainian staff inquiring about the aid. This she related in a second (?) appearance before a house committee. Sounds rather routine to me.
1. Cooper said what she was aware of, based on personal notes, outside of her office and without anyone else to query.
2. White House uses testimony in its favor and publicizes the argument.
3. Someone else sees that argument, check if it stands up to scrutiny and determines that it does not. They inform Cooper.
4. Cooper relays the information.
Despite various assertions to the contrary, the US Federal government is not The Borg. They do not all magically know what everyone else knows.
One might even say that it’s a giant sprawling mess of out of date communication systems and out of date record-keeping systems, all barricaded off from one another via security protocols and conflicting command structures.
The one positive of it, is that it means that information that would be good to have is squirreled around all over the place, ready to pop out should you happen to look into the right corner.
---
### Author:  [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/410 "2020-01-28T05:41:32Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> One might even say that it’s a giant sprawling mess of out of date communication systems and out of date record-keeping systems, all barricaded off from one another via security protocols and conflicting command structures.
And the various intelligence agencies have a tendency to treat new information a like toddler with a new toy: sit on it so none of the other toddlers know about it, much less be able to play with it.
---
### Author:  [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/411 "2020-01-28T05:47:11Z")
> [@Bijou\_Drains](#):
>
> They won’t get 4 , maybe they get Romney.
I am becoming less inclined to think this how things will play out. I’ve been very clear this will not only end in acquittal but that DJT will more likely than not be reelected.
And yet, I see some signs that McConnell’s hold on the GOP Senators is slipping. I heard former GOP chair Michael Steele suggest this morning it likely there could be anywhere from 5 - 10 GOP senators who will vote for calling Bolton and possibly other witnesses. His reasoning is that being the 51st vote for witnesses is a very difficult position since it would likely be seen as being the traitor vote but 52, 53 or more gives people cover. Independent of Maine Angus King was making a similar prediction this evening. The leaks from Bolton’s book seem to be causing more Senators than just Romney to be shifting in favor of calling witnesses.
We will see shortly.
---
### Author:  [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/412 "2020-01-28T06:28:49Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#):
>
> I couldn’t bring myself to watch the “defense” today, but if I had to guess, you were listening to Dershowitz. My understanding is that he was taking on this particular bit of misdirection. It’s flat wrong and you are wise to disregard it. Individuals subject to impeachment have been impeached and removed for non-crimes, and individuals have committed crimes that are not impeachable offenses.
>
> Here is a good explanation from [Lawfare](https://www.lawfareblog.com/must-impeachable-offenses-be-violations-criminal-code).
>
> It’s worth remembering that there were zero criminal statutes on the books at the time the Constitution was written. None. They hadn’t been written yet. So it’s quite disingenuous for Republicans to pretend the Framers could have referenced specific crimes for which impeachment would apply.
See United States v. Hudson; Professor Dershowitz is correct.
---
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/413 "2020-01-28T06:37:58Z")
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! Suuuuure he is.
---
### Author:  [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/414 "2020-01-28T06:43:52Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#):
>
> See United States v. Hudson; Professor Dershowitz is correct.
United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 32 (1812) (cite it properly, please) clearly applies to US statutory criminal law. However, I see nothing that bootstraps it to an impeachment trial, which is an entirely different standard. Criminal law does not enter into it. Impeachment/removal is a civil action meant only to remove someone from their job as president, not deprive them of their physical liberty.
Professor Dershowitz is fucking with you.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/415 "2020-01-28T07:13:52Z")
“Everybody else thinks my interpretation is a bunch of legalistic butt-whistle, but fuck you guys, here it is!” Refreshing, at any rate.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/416 "2020-01-28T07:32:29Z")
What I’m pondering right now is the prospect that WH knew what was gonna be in Bolton’s book, but kept it from the GOP Senators in hope of getting the acquittal nailed down before the trajectory of the shit intersected the locus of the fan.
“Yeah, that’s right, I used you because you’re a slut and that’s what I do! Now, get back down there and give it one more good suck, then wipe your chin for the Victory Party!”
One possible answer is “Yes, sir, right away, sir, mmmmm-GOOD!”. There is another.
---
### Author:  [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/417 "2020-01-28T07:45:56Z")
Here’s what I don’t understand.
Why would the WH leak what was leaked from the book transcript to the NY Times? How do they possibly benefit from that leak?
Bolton went to great pains today to say he was not the source of the leak, that the WH must have made copies to distribute from the one transcript he provided, and that he felt they had corrupted the review process. He implied the leak came from the WH. Lastly, he made a point of saying that if he testifies, it will be as a fact witness with no agenda. (You bet, John.)
The book is set to publish on March 17th. Not going to look good for Republican senators if they vote for no witnesses knowing that Bolton has direct evidence that goes to the very heart of Trump’s “defense.”
So again, why would the _White House_ leak the information that would appear to be so damaging to Trump and his Republican Senate defenders?
I don’t trust Bolton. I don’t expect him to be the great salvation for the House managers if he testifies.
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/418 "2020-01-28T08:26:22Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#):
>
> See United States v. Hudson; Professor Dershowitz is correct.
I’ll go with Hamilton over Il Dersh:
> [@Alexander F'n Hamilton](#):
>
> A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of **its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust**. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, **as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself**. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
>
> […]
>
> Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives. A deficiency in the first, would be fatal to the accused; in the last, dangerous to the public tranquillity. The hazard in both these respects, could only be avoided, if at all, by rendering that tribunal more numerous than would consist with a reasonable attention to economy. The necessity of a numerous court for the trial of impeachments, is equally dictated by the nature of the proceeding. **This can never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors, or in the construction of it by the judges** , as in common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security. There will be no jury to stand between the judges who are to pronounce the sentence of the law, and the party who is to receive or suffer it. The awful discretion which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons.
(Emphasis added)
In essence saying, this is a political trial not a legalistic one, and the results, how the trial takes place, what the standards are, etc. are all such a matter of extremity that it has to be left up to the people, in that moment, and their best judgement and not on any nitpickery or rules. (At least, that it is my read.) Rules are, after all, made to be ignored and corrupted when political pressure comes to bear.
> [@](#):
>
> These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments. There remains a further consideration, which will not a little strengthen this conclusion. It is this: The punishment **which _may_ be the consequence** of conviction upon impeachment, is not to terminate the chastisement of the offender. After having been sentenced to a prepetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be **liable** to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed of his fame, and his most valuable rights as a citizen in one trial, should, in another trial, for the same offense, be also the disposers of his life and his fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend, that error, in the first sentence, would be the parent of error in the second sentence? That the strong bias of one decision would be apt to overrule the influence of any new lights which might be brought to vary the complexion of another decision? Those who know anything of human nature, will not hesitate to answer these questions in the affirmative; and will be at no loss to perceive, that by making the same persons judges in both cases, those who might happen to be the objects of prosecution would, in a great measure, be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial. The loss of life and estate would often be virtually included in a sentence which, in its terms, imported nothing more than dismission from a present, and disqualification for a future, office. It may be said, that the intervention of a jury, in the second instance, would obviate the danger. But juries are frequently influenced by the opinions of judges. They are sometimes induced to find special verdicts, which refer the main question to the decision of the court. Who would be willing to stake his life and his estate upon the verdict of a jury acting under the auspices of judges who had predetermined his guilt?
(Emphasis and italics added)
In essence saying, if the Supreme Court handled the matter then there is the chance that you might have to make two go-rounds - once for the impeachment trial and a second time for a criminal trial (if applicable). But then you’ve got the same exact people judging you, and using the same exact evidence. You’ll be thrown out of office just to know that you’re doomed on the second go-round, with no hope. The second trial is just an added punishment on top of everything you already lost and everything you are going to lose.
But, note that there is two trials and no question on that matter. Why? If it must be a criminal trial and it’s taking place in a court of law, which could easily handle criminal matters, then you shouldn’t need a second round.
That is, unless of course, it is plainly the case that the standards of removal and criminal justice are different.
I would also note that the President is not a civilian. DOJ policy strongly rests on that point and, I suspect, some number of Supreme Court rulings will affirm that to be the case.
You, for example, have the freedom to preach any religion that you want, in the middle of the street. The President is shackled by the 1st Amendment. His ability to back and endorse a religion is toast. You can question me any time you want. The President may not question you without providing you with a lawyer, on his dime, first. You may accept a free Bugatti Veyron from the Prince of Saudi Arabia. The President is banned from doing so.
He is not a civilian, **he is a function of the Constitution in human personification**. Extrapolating from the rules that the government is constrained by when dealing with an average citizen, to the rules that the government might be constrained by when dealing with itself, is piss-poor Constitutional law.
There are, admittedly, real scholars who argued that a specific crime must be quoted. No impeachment, to-date, has won on that argument I can reasonably assume since, otherwise, there’d be no debate on the topic. If someone can find one, I’ll reconsider.
I find it terribly unlikely, though, that Congress would choose to give away the power to convict the President even in the absence of a clear, statutory crime. As it is, they won’t even fight a subpoena to the Supreme Court, on the off-chance that they might lose it. So long as no one is sure whether or not they have that power, they can bring it out and play some rope-a-dope.
This is the norm for the Constitution. The branches assert a power and avoid having to relinquish it. The Supreme Court has affirmed it as a viable technique. They will, in fact, usually opt to not rule on any such matter if they can get away with it, since they view governmental fist-fights as being decided by the person who punches harder, not the person who got the Supreme Court to back them. The fist-fight is (i.e., checks and balances are) the official mechanism for coming to a resolution.
---
### Author:  [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/419 "2020-01-28T09:17:05Z")
> [@mundylion](#):
>
> Many want to hear from Bolton because they think he will corroborate the fact that Trump withheld funds on purpose, to prod Ukraine to investigate Biden. But everyone knows that Trump did that. The Republicans know that but simply don’t think that that is an impeachable offense. End of story.
>
> Move on.
> [@drad\_dog](#):
>
> I want to for different reasons.
Must . . . fight . . . urge . . . to . . . kinkshame [/WilliamShatnerVoice]
---
### Author:  [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2020, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/420 "2020-01-28T12:15:09Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#):
>
> I am agog at such prodigious talent displayed so casually! How did you manage to type that while waving your hands?
Let’s go down to the quarry and throw stuff in there. Ay, verily!
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524.md?page=20)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524.md?page=22)