The Trump Impeachment Trial

[Akaj]

@BobLibDem

McConnell watches what he says very carefully. He said he didn’t have the votes in order to pressure those on the fence with the full wrath of the right wing media about to fall on those who dare cross the Dear Leader. I think the will ultimately prevail and there will be no witnesses and we’ll see acquittal on Friday. As a Democratic partisan, I think that is the best outcome. This trial will go down as a sham and energize Democrats for the fall. We all know the outcome, let’s get the outcome in such a way as to make Republicans look as bad as possible.

We all know Trump will be acquitted, witnesses or no. Given that, wouldn’t the best case for Dems in November to have him acquitted after witness testimony that will likely bolster the prosecution’s case and weaken the defense? Then all those R Senators who vote to acquit will have to face voters who have seen the fullest explanation possible of the president’s wrongdoing. Seems to me that would be more damaging than simply having to live down a sham trial.

[Kent_Clark]

@Max_S

I’m pretending to be a judge and juror, even though I am not a Senator, because that’s my idea of democracy.

Okay, Judge and Juror. The facts are not in dispute. The President withheld funding that had been legally appropriated by Congress, asked a foreign country for an investigation specifically targeted against the family member of a political opponent, then released the funds only after his actions became public knowledge, and then refused House committee requests to release documents or allow witness testimony pertaining to those actions.

Do those facts rise to the Constitutional standard of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” to be removed from office?

[Max_S]

@BeepKillBeep

It is beyond obvious that Trump is guilty. All the matters is whether the rule of law and the constitution will be upheld. Trumpists better be careful. You might get what you wish for. The office of the president will become above the law. And perhaps somebody is so partisan that while Trump is in office they’re ok with this because he bears the (R). But Trump won’t be president forever. A Democrat will be in office eventually. Do you want the office of the president to be above the law under a Democrat? What happens if the Democrats decide that to compete they need to be as authoritarian as the Republicans? What happens to your country?

In another thread, somebody (I don’t recall and it isn’t important) said they would vote for Trump if the Democrat candidate was not going to deal with border issues. This is madness to me. There is no issue that the Republicans can offer that is more important than ensuring the rule of law. A vote for Trump is a vote for making the president king. No matter how much damage you think the Democrats might do on any issue, nothing trumps (ha!) this absolutely primal requirement to have a functional democracy.

If one disagrees that Trump is obviously guilty, it does not follow that a vote for Trump is a vote for making the President king or above the law. Not that I would vote for Trump in the next election, I’m just pointing out a flaw in your otherwise flawless argument.

~Max

[BobLibDem]

@Akaj

We all know Trump will be acquitted, witnesses or no. Given that, wouldn’t the best case for Dems in November to have him acquitted after witness testimony that will likely bolster the prosecution’s case and weaken the defense? Then all those R Senators who vote to acquit will have to face voters who have seen the fullest explanation possible of the president’s wrongdoing. Seems to me that would be more damaging than simply having to live down a sham trial.

I can see that argument. Personally, I think Dems would benefit more from outrage over a sham trial and the drip of revelations coming out with Bolton’s book and God knows what else will be coming out between now and November. Right now 70% of the country wants witnesses. I think it would be better if Republicans pissed off 70% of the people.

[Max_S]

@drad_dog

OK I’ll rephrase. The arguments put on were naive and simplistic and don’t reflect actual workplaces, govts, theaters of war, or law enforcement activities. So I feel I am the object of sport.

You aren’t the object of sport. If you don’t want to believe me, that’s fine too. I may actually be naive and unexperienced with actual workplaces, govts, theaters of war, or law enforcement activities. I haven’t had personal experience in any of the above except the workplace, and my experience in the workplace may not be representative of everyone else’s (I think it is, but I’ve only worked in one town).

But I’m not trolling you here.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Fiveyearlurker

Think about how low we all regard the GOP at this point. We aren’t hoping that there are 20 of them who are patriotic enough to remove Trump from office. We are hoping that there are four of them who are willing to allow evidence to support that removal even be heard. And they’re still likely to come up short.

Speak for yourself, I am still undecided as to whether the president should be removed.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Fiveyearlurker

NY Times editorial disagrees.

The rules further empower the chief justice to enforce the subpoena rule. Rule V says: “The presiding officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules, or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.” The presiding officer, under our Constitution, is the chief justice. As such, the chief justice, as presiding officer, has the “power to make and issue, by himself,” subpoenas.
*

“If there were any doubt, recall the language of the Constitution, which orders that, in an impeachment trial of the president, “the Chief Justice shall preside.” To “preside” is not a merely symbolic role; it can mean, just as it meant during President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial, to be asked to make a range of actual rulings, including ones on which the chief justice is not merely the first word but also the last.”*

And maybe the funniest part of this, buried toward the end:

“There’s icing on this cake. The special rules for Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial drafted by the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, establish certain obstacles for witness testimony, requiring a deposition first and only then a Senate vote on whether to allow the witness to testify. But those rules apply only to a particular category of witnesses — those called “if the Senate agrees” to them. They manifestly don’t apply when it’s the chief justice who orders witnesses to appear.”

That’s interesting, I’ll have to look into that.

~Max

[Max_S]

@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”

This is not my understanding of the [DEL]Republican[/DEL] defense position. More like,

“The articles of impeachment do not allege an impeachable offense.”

“Calling witnesses would be a waste of time because even if witnesses proved everything asserted by the prosecution, we still couldn’t convict the president because there’s nothing to convict him for.”

I disagree with both statements, for the record.

~Max

[Max_S]

@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.

My understanding of the defense is that the withholding of aid was partly out of concern for corruption in Ukraine (after President Zelenskyy was sworn in), and partly out of concern for foreign aid cost-sharing. In the defense theory, the withholding of funds is not directly linked to the investigation of Hunter Biden or Burisma. The only connection is that both have to do with corruption in Ukraine. But the concerns about corruption that were ostensibly behind the holdup are not about Biden/Burisma.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

The part that sticks in my craw is that Trump has declared Bolton a liar on Twitter (along with probably every other witness), yet still resists sworn testimony. If he lies under oath, the Rs just have to prove it and he can get a jail cell next to Cohen and Manafort and etc.

Catch 'em in perjury, guys! But they won’t, because they can’t. I feel like this point should have way more prominence than it gets.

I’m with you on this point, Try2B Comprehensive.

But as I tried to explain before, the ostensible controversy about calling witnesses is over whether the articles of impeachment allege an impeachable (convictable) offense, even given the assumption that everything alleged is true.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Ravenman

But for example, the repetition that Ukraine did not know about the hold on funds, which is contradicted by sworn testimony that they aren’t even challenging the veracity of, is a vivid example of why people don’t think lawyers have anything but a passing fancy in truth.

For my convenience could you cite the assertion and contradictory testimony?

~Max

[steronz]

@Max_S

This is what I interpret as your argument that President Trump’s defense is absurd on its face, and therefore undeserving of serious consideration. You are arguing that, if I were the judge, I should immediately find for the prosecutors because the defense offered is absurd on its face. In order to decide whether the defense is actually absurd, I have to reconcile what you say with what the defense says.

The defense argument is not that President Trump was “acting as a government agent fighting corruption”. Neither does the defense argue that President Trump “was trying to operate rogue outside of our govt”. These two statements are not stipulated to, these statements are not findings of fact (yet), and it would be unjust to find for the prosecution before even considering the defense based on contested premises.

Then you bring up the “chain of command”. I construe your third argument as being, “the defense is absurd because the President kept something (?) from his chain of command (?)”. It is implied that keeping this something (what?) from this chain of command (what chain of command?) is absurd. The question marks indicate what I do not understand of your argument.

Originally I was confused because normally, keeping something from the chain of command means not telling your supervisors what’s going on. The president doesn’t have “supervisors” per se, and I assume you are well aware of that. That is why I specifically asked what you mean by “chain of command” in this instance.

In this most recent post #248 you appear to hint that the chain of command includes the President’s “own foreign office”. So, I assume, when you argue the president is keeping something from his chain of command, you mean he is keeping something from his foreign office.

That being resolved, what is it specifically that the president kept from his foreign office, and why is it patently absurd (impeachable) for him to do so?

~Max

I’m not sure how useful “absurd on its face” is as a legal argument; certainly even the most absurd of absurd legal decisions are given at least some minimal consideration, almost by definition. And I don’t think Trump’s defense here that he and Team Giuliani were doing right by America (just outside the normal channels) is worth dismissing without at least getting some basic answers. But let’s look at some of the problems with this, all of which I think have been brought up already in at least some thread you’re involved with:

1. Bypassing the normal channels (the chain of command) means bypassing any protections built into those organizations for the rights of US persons. E.g., by law the government may not collect intelligence on a US person unless certain conditions are met, and by going outside the normal channel there’s no mechanism in place to ensure those rules are followed. Who is Rudy Giuliani accountable to if he violates those rules?

2. Bypassing the normal channels is bad for transparency and record-keeping. E.g., can we send FOIA requests to Rudy Giuliani in the same manner that we send them to the state department? Can the state department IG start an internal investigation into Lev Parnas?

3. Not even telling the normal channels what’s going on leaves the door wide open for confusion, duplicated effort, wasted money, etc. E.g., look at how much money we’ve wasted trying to figure out what Trump was doing because he lacked the foresight to tell anyone in State or the OMB ahead of time what he was doing. Instead of saying, “Oh, Trump is handling this on his own,” people ran to their own chains of command, they ran to lawyers, they filed a whistleblower complaint… what a mess.
   Certainly if you Max S. started a company and were president and CEO, you could very well answer to no one and your response to those concerns could be “fuck off, it’s my company.” You could NOT do that if you were hired as CEO by a board of shareholders, for instance. They would immediately want to know why you were going outside of the company’s normal channels to do something, for all of the same reasons as above. They would want answers, and while maybe it wouldn’t be right to dismiss your answers “on their face,” you would certainly have an uphill battle. If your response was, “Fuck off, I’m the CEO,” you would get fired so fast it would make your head spin, because they did not elect you to be king of the company.

Likewise here… the fact that you’re giving this much credence to Trump’s defense of “I’m the president, fuck off,” suggests that you’re OK with him acting like a king. I think that’s drag dog’s point, but I don’t want to speak for him.

[QuickSilver]

@Max_S

If one disagrees that Trump is obviously guilty, it does not follow that a vote for Trump is a vote for making the President king or above the law. Not that I would vote for Trump in the next election, I’m just pointing out a flaw in your otherwise flawless argument.

~Max

It may be somewhat hyperbolic to say that a vote for Trump is a vote for making him King. But it can be reasonably argued that it will enable and embolden further abuse of power by Trump with impunity, thus placing him above the law in many respects.

Trump has demonstrated an affinity for authoritarianism and admiration of dictators. With 63M supporters (at last count), a GOP that has capitulated all conservative principles and now carries water for the Trump Administration, it may not be said that Trump will crown himself King with a 2020 victory. But it’s naive to think that his supporters would object if he took dramatic steps towards unvarnished authoritarianism (i.e. Putin, Erdogan, etc…).

[Max_S]

@Sherrerd

All correct—which didn’t stop Pam Bondi, just a few minutes ago, from brazenly lying about it. She played the clip of Biden telling his audience how he got Shokin fired, then said something close to 'what Biden didn’t tell them was that Shokin, the man he got fired, was investigating Burisma.’

Just blatant lying, in the knowledge that there will be no consequences for it. Disgusting.

Misleading, yes. But not a blatant lie. My understanding is that the Burisma investigation was still “open”, but Shokin was purposefully slow-walking it.

~Max

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

Once again my schedule won’t allow me to watch. Is it too late in the process for impassioned soliloquies about character, character, character? If we get one of those, someone please describe it here.

[Max_S]

@Ravenman

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1XU2VX

I’m trying to find Reuters’s source for their quotation of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper, “On July 25 a member of my staff got a question from a Ukrainian Embassy contact asking what was going on with U.S. security assistance”.

In the highlights of her testimony, released by the House Intelligence Committee the week before that Reuters article, it says “Based on her conversations with Ambassador Volker and Ambassador Bill Taylor, Ms. Cooper understood that Ukrainian officials were aware that the security assistance had been frozen as of August 2019”. p.9 from https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191111_-cooper_transcript_excerpts_final-_286582365.pdf

In the testimony itself, I found where Ms. Cooper said she had no conversations with Ukrainians during the July-August time period, and was not aware of any specific instances where anyone from the DoD had a conversation with Ukrainians about the hold during July-early September, but that answer was because she couldn’t discern conversations that the embassy might have had with Ukrainians versus the DoD attache in Kyiv. She testified that she didn’t know whether there were emails conveying Ukrainian concerns about security assistance during that time frame.

The quote from Reuters contradicts this testimony, so I’m probably missing something here.

Her testimony is in the spoiler below, reproduced verbatim from p.94-95 of https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D012.pdf

[SPOILER]"Q Are you aware of anyone within the Department of Defense having conversations with Ukrainians about the hold during the July, August, beginning of September time period?

A I’m not aware of specific instances, but I would just recall that we have a team in Embassy Kyiv that are DOD representatives under Ambassador Bill Taylor. So, you know, it would be very hard for me to discern conversations that the embassy side might have had versus the defense attache side.

Q Okay. And I believe you testified earlier that you were in constant communication, or regular communication –

A Right.

Q – with the defense attache in Kyiv. Is that right?

A Yes. To be –

Q Or your staff.

A – completely accurate, my staff, but –

Q And was security assistance a topic that they would have discussed?

A Absolutely. Throughout this entire period of time, our team in Kyiv was acutely aware of the hold and was expressing serious concerns to us.

Q How were those concerns conveyed to you? Were they by email or some other form of communication?

A So to me, it was kind of in-person. So I don’t know whether there were emails to my staff. I would imagine there probably were, and I would imagine there were probably emails, you know, within various DOD components, because everyone focused on implementing the security assistance.

You know, they were engaged in, as I said before, this discussion of how long can we hold off, and so there were multiple DOD offices. But that is not to say that any of these would have necessarily been talking to the Ukrainians. I have no evidence of that."[/SPOILER]
~Max

[Max_S]

@Max_S

The quote from Reuters contradicts this testimony, so I’m probably missing something here.

CBS’s Face the Nation twitter account fills in the gap with:
"NEW: Laura Cooper says since her closed-door testimony earlier this month, her staff has informed her that on July 25 — the same day as Trump’s call with Zelensky — they were asked by a Ukrainian embassy official about “what was going on with Ukraine’s security assistance.”

[Video of Ms. Cooper testifying as to the above]
https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/1197293088420573185

The next step would be to depose her staff so that we aren’t dealing with hearsay.

~Max

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Originally Posted by **Akaj **
We all know Trump will be acquitted, witnesses or no. Given that, wouldn’t the best case for Dems in November to have him acquitted after witness testimony that will likely bolster the prosecution’s case and weaken the defense? Then all those R Senators who vote to acquit will have to face voters who have seen the fullest explanation possible of the president’s wrongdoing. Seems to me that would be more damaging than simply having to live down a sham trial.

@BobLibDem

I can see that argument. Personally, I think Dems would benefit more from outrage over a sham trial and the drip of revelations coming out with Bolton’s book and God knows what else will be coming out between now and November. Right now 70% of the country wants witnesses. I think it would be better if Republicans pissed off 70% of the people.

The great thing is: You’re both right. This is why Republican senators are completely boned at this point.

If they deny witnesses and push for a quick vote, then the public can see that they did not take any of this seriously and did not even care what the facts were. This will bite them in the ass come election time.

If they allow witnesses, then even more stench is revealed and they risk more people coming forward with even more revelations. Bolton may be the tipping point for others to come forward. There could be a parade of every top official that Trump has thrown under the bus in the past 2 years.

It’s this second scenario that has the Whitehouse (Trump) terrified. This is why he is currently threatening senators.

I expect some of them are getting calls from their Moscow handlers as well.

[Max_S]

@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 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.

This was the only part I heard yesterday, and I came away with the same conclusion. As I said before it seems that he is all hung up on the formal article being abuse of power while impounding funds instead of impounding funds to abuse power. A distinction without a difference, in my opinion.

The obstruction defense makes slightly more sense; the President didn’t obstruct any constitutional investigation or inquiry. The argument is that the initial phase of the impeachment investigation was not authorized by the House (and therefore the President didn’t need to comply with subpoenas), and his senior advisors have immunity even after the inquiry was authorized, and because the executive is entitled to immunity any subpoena from the house that denied agency counsel was unconstitutional and therefore without effect.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Aspenglow

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.

Be careful with that argument. By the same logic we get unitary executive theory (which I subscribe to). The executive branch initially consisted solely of the President; the Constitution describes the process for appointing officials but never divests the executive power from the President himself.

~Max