If a transcript isn’t released, I’d check Lawfare for a “no bull” edition.
Thank you! It already looks tolerable.
I recall an old-time data consumer saying they didn’t read newspapers until ten years after publication, so they’d have perspective on what was REALLY important. How long should I wait on Senate trial news?
The 12th of never?
Treat life like ten years have passed.
Next time you hear someone float the notion of “censure”…as in “Sure, mistakes were made, but we mustn’t throw out the baby with the bongwater”…restock your popcorn, Hellzapoppin…
Usually, I would recommend that people stay on topic and not go ad hominem but, ancillary to the impeachment trial, Dershowitz was asked about his work for Jeffrey Epstein:
He implied, in essence, “I didn’t like the guy.” That is false. He started hanging out with him, if I recall correctly, prior to being employed by him; he had a few social visits and plane flights that are unrelated to his known legal services; he admitted to getting a massage from “an older woman” at Epstein’s house; and, despite Dershowitz claiming to have otherwise never been with nor seen any women in Epstein’s company, we have flight logs that put Dershowitz with “Tatianna”, “Hazel”, and “Claire” - and not all on the same flight, I don’t believe.
If any news reporter asks any Democrat about anything related to Dershowitz’s defense of Trump, it would be amazingly stupid to not point out that the guy is a liar. That he was chummy with Epstein largely comes from his own, earlier, statements. And there’s zero to debate about the flight logs about him spending some time with Epstein and some unknown girls.
Hell, if I was Schiff, I’d pre-emptively publish a press release that goes over the facts of the matter, before then also pointing out that Dershowitz’s legal arguments are bull and that the Founders didn’t want impeachment used to block maladministration not corruption, as Dershowitz is trying to imply.
His sex life is “perfect,” that phone call was “perfect”… Somehow I doubt it.
Not unexpected: “Yeah, he did it, but so what?” :rolleyes:
I wonder if we will ever see the President’s “valid reasons to raise those issues with Ukraine”. I will admit that, if he had valid reasons, he does possess the power to ask Ukraine to investigate a political rival (or their family). He does have a wide latitude when it comes to foreign policy. Although I do not think the President’s foreign policy powers trump Congress’s power over the purse, the President has not been impeached for impoundment. He was impeached for corrupt abuse of power, and if he had legitimate reasons to do what he did, he should be acquitted on that charge.
But all of this is predicated on the President having valid reasons. Neither the House investigation nor public statements have convinced me that there were valid reasons to ask Ukraine to announce an investigation into either Mr. Biden or the DNC.
~Max
Read the White House’s 117-page defense brief here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Trial-Memorandum-of-President-Donald-J.-Trump.pdf
~Max
Collins is hardly worth thinking about. A total waste of a Senate seat.
I’d be amazed if that length is due to substance.
I feel like I should skim through, to give the President his fair shot to provide some form of evidence to demonstrate an interest in fighting corruption. But I feel pretty confident that the page count is to convince people that there’s more than hot in air in there.
I see that Cippolone got to choose the title headings for the chapters…
Jesus fuck, these idiots.
Fortunately, it looks like we can skip to page 80.
So the trial will be held in the middle of the night and they will not look at any evidence?
Yep. If you saw this happening in another country you’d think that country’s government is broken, wouldn’t you? I certainly do.
Sounds like this will wrap by Friday. Disgraceful.
I sort of feel obliged to read the briefs for both sides and play judge. But yeah, I would be quite surprised if there’s a coherent defense to be made this far in.
~Max
I only read the section from 80 to 106, as the only portion that seems to produce evidence.
The argument laid out would seem to rest on four legs:
-
The assumption of impropriety rests entirely on Gordon Sondland and his statements of belief of Trump’s guilt. But, notably, his “belief” is just that and he could offer no direct statements from the President which clearly ask for anything beyond doing what Zelenskyy had promised to do as part of his party platform. Everyone else’s impression of the matter comes from Sondland’s statements. That is to say, Sondland has a black soul and read his own dark thoughts onto the reasonable and justified actions of the President.
-
The House witnesses testified at various points that the President brought up and discussed corruption, in speeches and discussions with Ukrainian officials.
-
There is a variety of evidence attesting to the fact that Trump has complained regularly that the US shouldn’t be paying for Ukraine and other places, and certainly not if others aren’t.
-
Zelenskyy says that he saw no pressure and was aware of no pressure. Various witnesses to the house attest that Ukraine had no idea that money was being held up, and would have asked if they had thought that it was. And, again, no one can produce any statement that - minus the intent to read ill-will into everything Trump says, no matter how benign - says anything other than that Trump wants Zelenskyy to do what he campaigned on.
Overall, not a terrible argument. I wouldn’t say that any of the materials hold up to a lot of scrutiny but, just as much the case, the House argument (at current) is as weak as #1 and #4 imply. Neither the House nor White House case stands up to much poking.
Fundamentally, the House needed to prove that the “reading nefarious intent into everything Trump says” viewpoint is both eminently correct and undeniable. They did not do so, even though that was within their subpoena power to accomplish.
Alternately, they needed to take it to court and get their subpoenas pushed through (after two years of wrangling). I agree that this would have been a waste, though they should have gotten the ball rolling. I also suspect that they could have gotten more, if they had been more clever in their witness selection.
They also need(ed) a Benjamin Franklin to send to Ukraine - for those who know their history of the role of France during the Revolution.
I’ll point out some issues with the four arguments above but, it should be pointed out, Ukraine is not the only topic in the House Impeachment articles.
The House believes that they should be able to subpoena the White House and receive answer. Presumably, this would be based on the Oversight Power of Congress.
However, there is no actual Oversight Power of Congress. It’s an assumed power that we have record of the Framers discussing. We also have a long history of everyone understanding that there is an Oversight Power, with it being employed right from day 1 of the US beginning, 200+ years ago. There are a few Supreme Court cases that mildly affirm the matter, and that should be enough to lock it in, but “textualism” is in favor of the right in recent times. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the power of Oversight.
And more worrying than textualism is the matter that, if you took the question to the Supreme Court, ultimately, they know that they have no power to enforce anything. Adherence to the mandates of the Supreme Court require that the people running the other two branches, at the end of the day, don’t want to nuke the US Constitution.
Donald Trump, if he understood the US Constitution, would think that it is dumb. As it is, he simply doesn’t care about it. If it was between him losing his job or lighting that piece of paper that’s “so outdated and naive” on fire, it’d be marshmallow time in an instant. I mean, hell, that’s already where we are. That’s why this is the other issue in the impeachment list.
So even ignoring textualism, the Supreme Court is going to recognize that they can’t rule for Congressional Oversight and have that be a meaningful verdict. It would just be the shot that makes everyone realize that the sky is actually falling. They would, quite likely, simply decide that Congress has to use its levers to force the White House to come to an agreement. Which means that Pelosi would need to slam the door on the budget the way Donnie did for his Wall.
Except, of course, that we’re not asking the Supreme Court to decide this matter. Pelosi is asking the Senate to put down a precedent that the White House doesn’t have to respond to subpoenas, unless it is politically advantageous to them.
That’s why McConnell is trying to skip the trial. He doesn’t want to have to answer that question.
But that is the big ticket item for the Senate Republicans.
And so that’s what one really needs to look at. How good was the case that the House made?
To address the White House arguments:
a) Trump has an easily proven record of hiring black souls, with that being provable by their presence in jail.
b) Trump has records of practicing extortion and fraud, both of which are supportable through legal testimony and court records.
c) This argument relies on a very cherry-picked and questionable set of quotations. I am somewhat doubtful that they would all stand up to a full read-through, with proper context.
d) Lev Parnas
Is there any chance that these mentions were simply given to the President, on pieces of paper, by the State Department and that the President simply said what was on them?
Or, can the White House provide evidence that these concerns about corruption (in general) were the result of some form of communication from the White House - specifically from the President’s office - indicating a desire to fight corruption in Ukraine?
Given that the White House did, I believe, provide some materials in their defense - not just cherry-pick quotes from the House witnesses - it would have been reasonable for them to support this argument with a paper trail of some form.
It is also quite easy to demonstrate that the President is pro-corruption, minus occasions where he’s reading off a cue card or using the mention as a negotiating tactic.
While I have no question that the assertion, as stated, would bear through all scrutiny - that is indeed the unprompted statements of Trump, complaining about being used - again we would need some form of paper trail.
The White House argues that they had a general policy and review to ensure that money was being spent wisely. However, there’s no indication that the hold had anything to do with the review project and strong evidence that the request came direct from the White House, and not from the review.
It provides no explanation for why Ukraine would be singled out for special Presidential notice. And, given the President’s connection to Paul Manafort - a man who is in jail for practicing corruption in Ukraine - and the Biden connection, it’s fair to say that the President has a large conflict of interest in Ukraine and should not be directly interfering.
- It’s unclear how much we should trust the Ukrainian statements, given that they are dependent on Trump’s goodwill.
- The White House actually argues against itself in pointing out that Zelenskyy was busy shoring up support in Parliament at the time and not paying much attention to anything else.
- Lev Parnas
- Again, we have a lot of this argument made through questionable quotations that might not stand up to scrutiny, within the full context.
Nothing to add to the discussion, but I do want to thank Sage Rat for taking the time to read and summarize the document, and offer his analysis of the issues.
This will help me to understand what will happen in the coming days. Thanks again!