Plot twist! I love it. I have to say, whether the Democrats win or the United States loses, no one can say that the House managers didn’t put up one hell of a good fight. They have been thorough, eloquent, and as strategic as the format allows.
That’s the part that may get them the loss.
CNN reporting that Alexander will announce his position on witnesses tonight. He was seen coming out of a meeting with Murkowski. That vote is tight.
As things stand, the Senate is poised to offer absolute power to a moron who doesn’t realize that stealth aircraft aren’t actually invisible:
Trump: 'Strong consideration' to deploying F-35 aircraft at Selfridge
The Senate is about to make it virtually impossible to remove this man from office.
And while we’re all watching that revolting display of pro-authoritarian obsequiousness, William Barr has been a busy bee:
(My emphasis.)
This will make smoothing the path for Mr. Thinks-Air-Force-Has-Invisible-Planes, much, much easier. Critics will quake in their boots—or more likely, people will know that they had damn well better stop saying anything critical at all.
Good question. Now it’s my turn to selectively quote Federalist No. 65:
"The prosecution of [the subjects of an impeachment trial], 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.
[…]
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."
Emphasis on that last part, which is a direct answer to your question straight from Mr. Hamilton himself. Wouldn’t it be unwise to put every official at the mercy of a partisan Congress, not only for their position, but also for their life and limb?
One of the themes I have noticed in Constitutional sources is a deep distrust of mob rule and factionalism, sort of as a counterbalance to the deep distrust of monarchs and nobility. Our current form of government was intended to be a compromise between the two extremes, as demonstrated by the founding fathers themselves when presented with the French Revolution.
It is worth noting that the original impeachments of the English tradition were punitive in nature. Everybody except the King (Charles I excluded, he was impeached and executed in 1649) was subject to the threat of impeachment and could be fined, imprisoned, or even killed. The House of Lords would get to decide whatever punishment they saw fit, if I remember correctly.
Almost immediately upon revolting the newly independent states wrote impeachment into their own state constitutions. For example, New York’s 1776 constitution art. XXXIII contains a section almost word for word identical to the present U.S. Const. art. I sec. 3 cl. 7. I am nearly certain the clause was adopted straight from that source [URL=https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_806.aspin the original draft of the Constitution, art. XI sec. 5, from August 6, 1787.
~Max
Schiff already demonstrated his idea of fair, and could have called anyone relevant during the House investigation. There is zero chance any Republican senator will discuss any deals with him.
I thought it was the dems who refused the corrupt irrelevant horse trading. It’s self impeaching to do that, on the same damned issue that this is being tried over.
a) Congress is not the Supreme Court, so I wouldn’t say that it’s an answer to the question. I agree that, in the case of a Congressional trial, they are not well suited to also trying a criminal case, if a criminal trial is also necessary. It would make sense to split off any legal questions to elsewhere. That does not work for the Supreme Court, though.
b) More importantly, he’s giving a reason to not hold a criminal trial in Congress, which again implies that the trial which is being held is not criminal, since he accepts that it can be held it Congress.
c) He also still gives no indication that there’s any world in which a single trial would be sufficient, so it is not an answer to the question. If the idea is that the act being prosecuted must be criminal, the standards of the trial most conform to criminal standards, etc. then there is no reason to hold two trials. There is no value when it would be the same question asked under the same standards and procedures.
The ramifications of a double trial in different locations is answered by Hamilton. He does not answer why there are TWO trials.
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
I remain amazed at your dedication to following the details of the partisan fighting of the Impeachment, yet, at the same time avoiding the questions asked of you in this thread or taking a stand as to your judgment of the propriety of not calling witnesses for the trial.
Collins just said she is voting for witnesses.
Alexander is no. Says Trump totally did it, but so what.
Really thought that the people joking that Republicans would eventually argue that the president did it, but so what were exaggerating. But here we are.
If it’s a tie, I’m sort of hoping Roberts just takes the mic and farts in it. Really long one. Frrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaap!
It seems appropriate while watching all the GOP nonsense.
Anyone have an official (or as official as can be gotten by us common folk) whip count on the witness vote?
For what it’s worth, both sides are not equally bad. Anyone who thinks that Democrats would act the way Republicans have is delusional.
50-No
49-Yes
1-Murkowski, undecided
As for the four Republican senators we have been watching, Collins says yes, Alexander says no, Romney says nothing yet, and Murkowski (I probably butchered the spelling there) says she’ll think about it overnight.
It’s not looking hopeful for witnesses unless some dark horse comes forward.
Muchas gracias.
So, that’s it. Let’s wait for Shithead’s triumphant tweets.
To be fair, it’s possible that they all vote to impeach. Saying, “I already made up my mind.” Doesn’t mean, “I already made up my mind in a way that is favorable to the defendant.”
… In theory.