### Author:  [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)
#### Post date: [January 31, 2020, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/729 "2020-01-31T22:16:04Z")
Link to the ‘CNN discussion’?
---
### Author:  [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)
#### Post date: [January 31, 2020, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/730 "2020-01-31T22:29:55Z")
Sorry, got a client call.
Effectively, what’s happening now is that the procedure contains a “mistake” - if you’re a Republican, that is. The argument is that this part of the process calls for four hours of argument, 2 hours by each party,
> [@](#):
>
> on the question of whether it shall be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules _any_ motion to subpoena witnesses and documents.
(Emphasis mine, JT)
(Link goes to tweet with picture containing the relevant wording)
>
There are no limits on the motions, nothing, not even wording which allows the Republicans to roll all of them up into one. And each motion is granted **four hours** of debate. So we could have…
“I move that we call John Bolton!”
(four hours, with the Republicans having to defend, for two hours, why Bolton shouldn’t be called)
“I move that we call Donald Trump!”
(four hours, with the Republicans having to defend, for two hours, why Trump shouldn’t be called)
etc.
… at least, this is my reading of what the legal commentators are saying. IANAL, I don’t play one on TV, and I didn’t sleep well last night, Holiday Inn or not. I am sure this will be clarified as time progresses.
---
### Author:  [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)
#### Post date: [January 31, 2020, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/731 "2020-01-31T22:41:02Z")
lol, disregard the above, I guess. They’re voting.
---
### Author:  [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)
#### Post date: [January 31, 2020, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/732 "2020-01-31T22:44:19Z")
… and it’s a wrap. No witnesses, just as the Framers wanted.
---
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [January 31, 2020, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/733 "2020-01-31T22:44:33Z")
> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> Last question was telling from Murkowski and Alexander: Even if what Bolton says was true, it is not impeachable.
>
> I’ll predict it now. No witnesses: 51-49
Good guess. The motion to allow requests for subpoenas of witnesses and documents was rejected, 51-49.
~Max
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)
#### Post date: [January 31, 2020, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/734 "2020-01-31T23:01:12Z")
So…
The Senate has agreed that the President may violate any law, as long as the President believes he is doing it for the good of the country.
Now the President may decree that the 22nd Amendment is null and void, since he believes that being President for Life is for the good of the country.
L’état, c’est moi. – Louis XIV and Donald J. Trump
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [January 31, 2020, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/735 "2020-01-31T23:07:05Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#):
>
> So…
>
> The Senate has agreed that the President may violate any law, as long as the President believes he is doing it for the good of the country.
>
> Now the President may decree that the 22nd Amendment is null and void, since he believes that being President for Life is for the good of the country.
>
> L’état, c’est moi. – Louis XIV and Donald J. Trump
They nixed witnesses.
Now they have to vote on whether Congress maintains the power of Oversight or if it has to go to court for each discrete request.
So, whether the Republicans want to throw the Congressional branch into the history bin.
---
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [January 31, 2020, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/736 "2020-01-31T23:12:41Z")
> [@Akaj](#):
>
> I’m surprised you of all people buy into this slippery-slope business. Dems hated Bush II, but never tried to impeach him. Pubs hated Obama, but never tried to impeach him. And as much as Dems hate Trump, they wouldn’t have impeached him if he hadn’t (allegedly) blatantly abused the power of his office for personal gain. The only precedent being set – whether Trump is removed or acquitted – is _Don’t be a completely corrupt dickhead if you don’t want to be impeached._
Actually I think representatives tried to impeach both President Bush and President Obama. And, you know, they actually did impeach President Clinton.
I also doubt that the tipping point was an allegation of abuse of power. Mr. Trump was accused of abusing his position to enrich himself before he was even sworn in, what with the hotel in D.C. and refusing to divest and the charity and the schools.
I also disagree with your characterization of a hypothetical precedent. You seem to assume the conclusion that Trump was in fact a “completely corrupt dickhead” and that this fact led to his impeachment (conviction).
~Max
---
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [January 31, 2020, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/737 "2020-01-31T23:24:18Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#):
>
> The slippery slope part is, if a Democratic president engaged in behind the scenes manipulation of foreign policy in order to improve their electoral chances and then stonewalled congress about it, maybe Congress would impeach them too.
>
> The thing about slippery slopes is, sometimes they’re dangerous. Other times, you go down them shouting, “Woohoo!”
I don’t think the prospect of improving one’s electoral chances amounts to abuse of power unless you can prove there was no reasonable legitimate concurrent motivation. I won’t go so far as to make what has been termed the Derschwitz defense, but if a President makes a win-win decision (official policy win + personal win) I won’t hold that against him.
And regarding stonewalling, while I had previously admitted the legal defenses raised were baseless in the inquiry thread, I did not consider executive privilege at that time.
~Max
---
### Author:  [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)
#### Post date: [January 31, 2020, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/738 "2020-01-31T23:36:12Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> They nixed witnesses.
>
> Now they have to vote on whether Congress maintains the power of Oversight or if it has to go to court for each discrete request.
>
> So, whether the Republicans want to throw the Congressional branch into the history bin.
Mitch McConnell used the Senate to steal power away from the Presidency during the Obama years. When presented with a politician who openly stole power from the People, McConnell decided he could use this man to steal power from the House.
The Senate and Donald Trump are now openly working to remove our voice from government. That’s the crux of the matter here.
---
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [January 31, 2020, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/739 "2020-01-31T23:38:23Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> But this isn’t in a vacuum. We have years of Trump’s words and actions to judge his character and motivations. Taking this all into account, which is entirely reasonable for Senators to do, there should be no reasonable doubt that Trump’s intent was corrupt in his interaction with Ukraine officials.
I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 because I reviewed “years of Trump’s words and actions to judge his character and motivations.” I still wouldn’t chance my life/health/house/job/pretty much anything important to me on Trump’s intent being corrupt, not without hesitation, and personally that is the standard I use for beyond a reasonable doubt.
ETA: ( **Kent Clark** ’s hypothetical actually was in a vacuum)
~Max
---
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [January 31, 2020, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/740 "2020-01-31T23:44:35Z")
> [@str8cashhomie](#):
>
> I haven’t been following every post on this thread, but this struck me:
>
> If there actually is a threshold for evidence that would convince you that Trump abused his power beyond a reasonable doubt but you don’t think that publicly available evidence gets there, then witness testimony is vital to your eventual conclusion. Corrupt intent is something that can be proven in the context of an impeachment trial or a normal courtroom, and witnesses who can give evidence and context for the President’s intent are clearly relevant.
That’s right, I was all for calling of witnesses. I don’t think the House Managers can prove their case to my personal satisfaction without additional testimony and evidence.
~Max
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524.md?page=36)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524.md?page=38)