So now they’re basically saying they don’t want to see the evidence or hear witnesses. “We do not care.”
The Republican senators are not going to vote based on facts or evidence.
So why on earth would they want to hear any of that? McConnell has already explicitly said that he is going to violate his sworn oath, and has already made up his mind. And he knows that the most important thing is that he will be re-elected. So why would he give a shit?
If I understand it correctly the Republican senators would like to tell Democrats that they missed their chance to compel additional documents and testimony when they rushed the articles of impeachment through the House. That they had the subpoena power (after the House resolution) but, in their impatience, failed to exercise it. In other words, “no you”.
I haven’t made up my mind on this.
~Max
My local NBC, CBS, and ABC stations have all bailed out. Strangely, my local Fox affiliate (which is not owned by Fox) has preempted its local news to run continuous coverage.
I’m confused about what good that would have done when the Senate GOP is refusing to accept evidence and witness testimony that the house did have and use as part of the impeachment.
Is the only evidence admissible that which had to be subpoena’d? People who agreed to testify under oath without a subpoena are not admissible as witnesses or evidence?
My local news station seems to be doing a special on it. They break for regularly scheduled weather and traffic reports though.
~Max
Well, this runs into the issue of both-side-ism. The defense hasn’t been able to call their own witnesses yet, and so if the witnesses are limited to those deposed by the House that would be unfair to the defense. But if the defense calls their own witnesses then House prosecutors will complain that they haven’t had the opportunity to compel evidence and testimony yet.
Yes, the House invited the defense to produce evidence, and one of the charges is actually based on the defense’s refusal to do so. I’m still mulling over Appendix C of the defense brief (some OLC lawyer argues and takes credit for the administration’s refusal to participate in the House inquiry) so I’m not sure what to think of that yet.
My basic position is still very much against the President here, though.
~Max
The House gave the President every opportunity to offer a defense, and he refused. It’s ridiculous to hold this against the Democrats. It should be clear from the White House’s own words and transcripts that the allegations of the impeachment articles are accurate and true. The Senate is set upon making this a farce.
Democracy is doomed if even reasonable folks like you can’t see what’s staring them in the face – that the President engaged in attempted bribery and extortion of a foreign official for personal political benefit.
As I said just now, I’m still trying to understand the White House excuse for nonparticipation in the House inquiry (appendix C of the defense brief). But when you claim the allegations of impeachment are accurate and true just by reading the White House’s own words and transcripts, that undermines what I understand to be the Democrats’ major argument: we need additional witnesses and evidence to make our best case.
And I do see the argument that the President attempted to extort a foreign government for personal gain. That argument is pretty clear and even intuitive, without any additional evidence or testimony. What I haven’t done yet is considered the case for defense, in fact I’ll get back to doing that right now.
~Max
And then obstructed and covered up in order to prevent investigators from finding out anything once a whistleblower came forward.
And attempted to intimidate and threaten witnesses in order to prevent them from testifying.
This is easy. There was no legal or moral argument against the case, so their best option was to muddy the process and claim it was illegitimate.
No it doesn’t. It’s clear without this additional evidence… but it would be even more crystal clear with them. Hence, “best case”.
They haven’t even offered such a defense, only attacking the process and the Democrats.
This really is very easy, obvious stuff. Nothing wrong with reading either side’s case, but it’s been more than clear for weeks, if not months.
Reading through the defense brief, the very first point is this: Must the senate decide all questions of law and fact, including whether the articles of impeachment rise to the level of an impeachable offense?
I think the answer is yes.
The next question is whether the Senate should decide, before considering evidence, whether or not to dismiss the articles of impeachment out of hand. They would have to assume that everything alleged by the House managers is true, then decide if that rises to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. If not, the articles would be dismissed. It would be sort of like a motion to dismiss for failing to state an appropriate claim.
The only thing preventing me from endorsing the above procedure is my opinion that the Senate should show respect for the House of Representatives by entertaining their accusations without objection. But I think, from a position of hindsight, it would have been nice if the Clinton trial had followed this procedure.
Note also that Mr. McConnell changed his own rule proposal to automatically admit evidence taken by the House inquiry.
~Max
I’ve been watching this all day (MSNBC has been covering it uninterrupted). By now I should be used to the dishonesty of the Republicans in Congress, but the shamelessness I’m seeing is breathtaking.
How can someone stand there in front of the cameras that are relaying everything to the entire world, and tell lies that they and everyone in the room knows are lies?
Well, for one nobody in that room is allowed to call a liar a liar. Sort of like this place I like to frequent…
~Max
I hear in passing the notion that the Forces of Darkness “don’t care” about appearing to be so shameless about witnesses and evidence. But perhaps they really do care, care very much. But the trouble they would have if witnesses and evidence are permitted?.. apparently worse.
A tantalizing prospect. The truth good. Truth they don’t want me to have, double-plus super good with awesome ranch sauce. Best political practice would not usually be to directly confront and refuse what appears to be a very popular option. This option is bad, the other is doom.
Considering the obstruction, lies and obfuscation that the republicans have been dealing out. Perhaps a solution would be good old fashioned duels at dawn.
Anyone that does not see the clear impeachable crimes that Trump has committed is either a traitor or has their head in the sand.
The second point I find thoroughly unconvincing. In essence, the defense argues that only violations of law can rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Thanks to Ravenman for pushing me away from that theory.
They argue, and I agree, that impeachment should be reserved for egregious offenses that threaten the stability of the nation or undermine the Constitution. I think the House managers have done a fine job of accusing the President of doing just that, threatening our national interests by (illegally) withholding funds in an attempt to undermine the election.
The defense argument crumbles when they cite the near-impeachment of President Nixon (defense brief, footnote 122):
“Although the House Judiciary Committee’s report described Article II generally as involving “abuse of the powers of the office of President,” that was not the actual charge included in the articles of impeachment. The actual charges in the recommended article of impeachment included specific violations of laws.” (citations omitted)
This is a ridiculous argument. They are trying to draw a distinction between violating-the-law-while-abusing-one’s-powers and abusing-one’s-powers-while-violating-the-law. The prosecutors’ brief p.19 specifically accuses the President of breaking the law:
"President Trump illegally ordered the Office of Management and Budget to withhold $391 million in taxpayer-funded military and other security assistance to Ukraine. […]
“The Government Accountability Office has determined that the President’s hold was illegal and violated the Impoundment Control Act, which limits the President’s authority to withhold funds that Congress has appropriated.”
~Max
I’m not going to post my thoughts on all 171 pages of the defense (this thread isn’t my personal blog), but I did want to put my opinion on the “standards” section out there while the rules are being debated on Capitol Hill, to encourage debate.
The third point made is regarding the standard of proof, which the defense argues should be “beyond a reasonable doubt”. I agree with the defense on this, but I do not think that should be made part of the rules. We already have (had?) a dedicated thread about the standard of proof in a Senate impeachment trial, “[THREAD=885046]” What should be the standard of proof in a Senate impeachment trial?[/THREAD]
The fourth and final point made about the standards to be used in the trial is that the Senate should not consider allegations not charged in the articles of impeachment. I see no reason to disagree.
~Max
I am interested in your opinion of p.99-107, if you are willing to share it. That is where the defense argues that the President was justified in bringing up the DNC server and Biden.
~Max
Interesting that. I disagree. To a point.
Because if all of the allegations and crimes of Trump where brought up, it would take years in court. He’s been in ‘practice’ for a long, long time. I guess you have to draw the line somewhere. He’s been a crook of one flavor or another for 40 years.
In Voir Dire, both sides consider what jurors know about the defendant. In this case, they can’t excuse jurors because of prior relationships or knowledge.