Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

[Geezer]

Sammy the bull wasn't exactly a Sunday school teacher.

[DCHawk1]

But this is just part of the Merry-Go-Round, right? In a functioning proceeding, his testimony (where substantiated and verifiable) would be used to confirm/contextualize other evidence. It would not have to be believed, standing for itself.

But where you go out of your way to block such a great swath of other evidence - documentary, testimonial, etc. - you're forcing a scenario (like the one you describe) where you shouldn't accept Parnas' testimony (or even documents).

I think you're ignoring the fact that there is a Constitutional process for establishing all of this -- confirming and contextualizing.

But, for some reason, it was more important to get the articles of impeachment drafted and voted on quickly.

So...that...well...they could sit on them.

So what were they supposed to do? Wait on voluntary cooperation that was never going to come, or on judicial processes that were 100% going to be obstructed/protracted/delayed (and then, if recent history is any indication, just not complied with (if unfavorable) anyway)?

The system wasn't designed for just an entire fucking side of our politics deciding that laws, norms, good faith and the Constitution simply do not matter.

Good heavens.

How much do you know about prior presidential claims of privilege used to prevent various officials from testifying and/or complying with Congressional requests/subpoenas?

If you're going to argue that The system wasn't designed for just an entire fucking side of our politics deciding that laws, norms, good faith and the Constitution simply do not matter, then it might be advisable to understand what's at stake here and how such issues have been resolved prior or might be resolved this time.

Indeed, one could make the argument that allowing the process of the claims of privilege to play out to their logical conclusion IS perfectly demonstrative of respect for the constitutional process. That doesn't mean that Trump is right and that he can block any and all testimony he wants. In fact, he's probably wrong (see below). At the same time, however, his claims are hardly so far outside of the political mainstream to justify the use of any means necessary to legitimize the partisan reaction.

Moreover, McGahn is on appeal (and was before impeachment), although Judge Jackson's ruling was, more or less, that Mcgahn HAD to appear but not necessarily that he had to testify. i know it's frustrating and annoying and looks ugly, but it is demonstrably NOT the case that an entire fucking side of our politics deciding that laws, norms, good faith and the Constitution simply do not matter. That's not a reasonable reading of this at all.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/all- ... rivileges/

Claiming immunity for top aides is not, however, unique to this president—although he has pushed the envelope beyond what his predecessors have argued. Since Nixon, both Democratic and Republican presidents have made executive staff immunity claims. Seldom, however, have these disputes played out to the end; it appears that neither the executive nor the legislative branch wants to cede power to the third branch, the judicial, to decide. Instead, immunity claims usually result in negotiations between Congress and the executive, ending either with the surrender of one side (often after the situation triggering the standoff is no longer politically fraught), or with a negotiated compromise in which the committee issuing the subpoena typically gets some but not all of the information the executive originally tried to withhold.

There is little law that is directly on point. Before the McGahn case, only one of the few cases that passed on the legality of broadly claimed executive privilege involved an individual’s refusal to appear before a Congressional committee. In this case, a House committee sought testimony from Harriet Miers, President Bush’s White House counsel, regarding the replacement of seven U.S. attorneys, allegedly let go for unsavory political reasons. D.C. District Court Judge John Bates rejected Miers’ claim of immunity, holding that she was required to appear and give testimony, although Bates did note that executive privilege might support refusals to respond to particular questions. Judge Jackson largely endorsed the reasoning of Judge Bates in justifying her decision. The Miers case did not, however, settle the law, even for the District of Columbia (the district in which her case was heard). Although Judge Bates’ opinion is detailed and thoughtful, it was never reviewed on the merits by a higher court because the appellate process was unlikely to be finished before the expiration of the 110th Congress, at which point the committee’s subpoena would lapse. Other than Miers and McGahn the few other cases dealing with executive branch claims to immunity all deal with subpoenaed documents.[1]

As Judge Jackson noted in her opinion, legal arguments for allowing a president’s aides to claim immunity from Congressional subpoenas are mainly found in Department of Justice (DOJ) memoranda, usually prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), and mainly citing arguments in earlier OLC memoranda as justification. These DOJ opinions are not case law and read more like partisan briefs than dispassionate legal analyses....

Given these principles and earlier OLC arguments, it would appear that some of the immunity claims advanced by President Trump on behalf of his aides seek to stretch the law of executive privilege beyond its acknowledged boundaries. Indeed, in the case of some witnesses who have been instructed not to testify, the stretch is extreme. In particular, claiming immunity for staff who are not direct reports to the president, for members of the cabinet or their staff, and for people who have left the government would require the courts to go far beyond rethinking the availability of subpoena immunity for the closest active presidential aides....

A court that so desired could treat information relating to interactions with Ukrainian President Zelensky and his staff as diplomatic secrets intended for communication to the president whose details courts cannot probe, and it could hold that executive branch officials are immune from subpoena if called solely to testify on matters related to “negotiations” with Ukraine.

If the trial before the Senate takes the legal issues seriously, disputes over whether President Trump was privileged to order aides not to appear and to withhold from Congress subpoenaed documents are likely to be central to the disposition of the second impeachment count. If, as many expect, Republican senators vote against conviction despite apparent facts, they may justify their votes by saying that President Trump’s assertion of immunity as an executive privilege was in accord with the law. Only a definitive Supreme Court decision, which if it comes at all will come long after the Senate trial, could prove the Senators wrong.

[DCHawk1]

Sammy the bull wasn't exactly a Sunday school teacher.

And this isn't a criminal proceeding.

[DCHawk1]

But this is just part of the Merry-Go-Round, right? In a functioning proceeding, his testimony (where substantiated and verifiable) would be used to confirm/contextualize other evidence. It would not have to be believed, standing for itself.

But where you go out of your way to block such a great swath of other evidence - documentary, testimonial, etc. - you're forcing a scenario (like the one you describe) where you shouldn't accept Parnas' testimony (or even documents).

I think you're ignoring the fact that there is a Constitutional process for establishing all of this -- confirming and contextualizing.

But, for some reason, it was more important to get the articles of impeachment drafted and voted on quickly.

So...that...well...they could sit on them.

And calling people as witnesses in the trial is part of that constitutional process.

No it's not.

For fuck's sake.

Not everything you want is "part of the constitutional process." The Senate can decide to do whatever the fuck it wants.

[DCHawk1]

is he gonna con the Senate too?

Maybe?

I mean...

Parnas told the Miami Herald last month that Ukraine’s government has access to information on alleged wrongdoing by Biden and his son and other U.S. officials overseas — but that the U.S. government had shown little interest in receiving it through official channels.


https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politi ... 03397.html

[DCHawk1]

and what are the optics of all this, of a potus blocking even more testimony? How will this read in the history books?

Why would that matter? You clearly haven't read any on the subject.

[twocoach]

I think you're ignoring the fact that there is a Constitutional process for establishing all of this -- confirming and contextualizing.

But, for some reason, it was more important to get the articles of impeachment drafted and voted on quickly.

So...that...well...they could sit on them.

And calling people as witnesses in the trial is part of that constitutional process.

No it's not.

For fuck's sake.

Not everything you want is "part of the constitutional process." The Senate can decide to do whatever the fuck it wants.

Is that different from the House? If not then why are you whining about how the House did things?

[jfish26]

I think you're ignoring the fact that there is a Constitutional process for establishing all of this -- confirming and contextualizing.

But, for some reason, it was more important to get the articles of impeachment drafted and voted on quickly.

So...that...well...they could sit on them.

So what were they supposed to do? Wait on voluntary cooperation that was never going to come, or on judicial processes that were 100% going to be obstructed/protracted/delayed (and then, if recent history is any indication, just not complied with (if unfavorable) anyway)?

The system wasn't designed for just an entire fucking side of our politics deciding that laws, norms, good faith and the Constitution simply do not matter.

Good heavens.

[...]

i know it's frustrating and annoying and looks ugly, but it is demonstrably NOT the case that an entire fucking side of our politics deciding that laws, norms, good faith and the Constitution simply do not matter. That's not a reasonable reading of this at all.

[...]

On one hand, you (and I don't mean this pejoratively) raise technical points suggesting that there's a reasonable way of looking at this that does not suggest partiality, railroading, bad faith and a general rejection of laws, principles, mores, norms, values, duty, etc.

On the other hand, the side it seems you'd take (with a gun to your head) is the one led by a guy who (a) says "I'm not impartial about this at all," and that "[e]verything I do during this, I'm coordinating with White House counsel", and so on and so forth, and (b) subsequently swore an oath to do "impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws."

So miss me, kindly, with the fig leaf stuff.

[DCHawk1]

And calling people as witnesses in the trial is part of that constitutional process.

No it's not.

For fuck's sake.

Not everything you want is "part of the constitutional process." The Senate can decide to do whatever the fuck it wants.

Is that different from the House? If not then why are you whining about how the House did things?

Try to keep up.

I merely pointed out that the whining -- YOUR whining -- that the senate won't do what you want it to is rich, given that the Dems could have, literally, done whatever they wanted to in the House but chose not to.

Which, I think, means that you're confirming my point, but bitching at me about it for some reason.

[ousdahl]

why, on a practical level, does potus want to prevent the senate from hearing from a con man, a professional liar under indictment for fraud?

and if Parnas DOES have dirt on the Bidens, wouldn't potus want the guy singing like a bird?

[twocoach]

No it's not.

For fuck's sake.

Not everything you want is "part of the constitutional process." The Senate can decide to do whatever the fuck it wants.

Is that different from the House? If not then why are you whining about how the House did things?

Try to keep up.

I merely pointed out that the whining -- YOUR whining -- that the senate won't do what you want it to is rich, given that the Dems could have, literally, done whatever they wanted to in the House but chose not to.

Which, I think, means that you're confirming my point, but bitching at me about it for some reason.

The House and the Senate were doing two separate things. I dont expect an indictment proceeding in criminal court to function under identical rules as a court trial and I didnt expect the House investigation to function under identical rules as the Senate trial.

They are different proceedings with different purposes. They called the necessary witnesses in the House to reach a decision on approving the article's of impeachment. It wasn't the goal of that proceeding to make the full case for both sides; that's what the trial is for. Especially when you consider the level of obstruction from the White House in making the relevant persons and documents available.

Sure, I would.have preferred if the White House didnt obstruct the House investigation and had allowed all relevant persons to testify and would have turned over all relevant documents that were requested of them


But they didnt. Now the Senate has the opportunity to make those same requests and they most definitely should.

Voting to do this without witnesses is different than requesting witnesses and being stonewalled. I'd the Senate makes the same requests for these witnesses and is again stonewalled then we'll see what happens. I just have a problem with not making the request.

[jfish26]

why, on a practical level, does potus want to prevent the senate from hearing from a con man, a professional liar under indictment for fraud?

and if Parnas DOES have dirt on the Bidens, wouldn't potus want the guy singing like a bird?

When's the last time any new information came out on this topic that was materially good for Trump?

It's just not that complicated - if Parnas (or any of the senior officials whose testimony the White House has blocked) - had information that was, on the balance, materially good for Trump, the testimony would be permitted.

[DCHawk1]

So what were they supposed to do? Wait on voluntary cooperation that was never going to come, or on judicial processes that were 100% going to be obstructed/protracted/delayed (and then, if recent history is any indication, just not complied with (if unfavorable) anyway)?

The system wasn't designed for just an entire fucking side of our politics deciding that laws, norms, good faith and the Constitution simply do not matter.

Good heavens.

[...]

i know it's frustrating and annoying and looks ugly, but it is demonstrably NOT the case that an entire fucking side of our politics deciding that laws, norms, good faith and the Constitution simply do not matter. That's not a reasonable reading of this at all.

[...]

On one hand, you (and I don't mean this pejoratively) raise technical points suggesting that there's a reasonable way of looking at this that does not suggest partiality, railroading, bad faith and a general rejection of laws, principles, mores, norms, values, duty, etc.

On the other hand, the side it seems you'd take (with a gun to your head) is the one led by a guy who (a) says "I'm not impartial about this at all," and that "[e]verything I do during this, I'm coordinating with White House counsel", and so on and so forth, and (b) subsequently swore an oath to do "impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws."

So miss me, kindly, with the fig leaf stuff.

Again, I think this is frustrating. And I agree that justice would be far better served for everyone if ALL witnesses, including the President's "private" attorney were compelled to testify. Actually, I'd prefer it if they agreed to testify, but that's not going to happen.

IF McConnell does not allow witnesses, I think there will be a backlash. I think he knows that, moreover, and I (hopefully) think he will act accordingly.

At the same, time, if we are looking for "norms," well...

Speaking on CNN's "Larry King Live" in January 1999, Schumer said the trial in the Senate was not like a jury box.

"We have a pre-opinion," Schumer said, citing himself and two newly-elected Republican senators who had voted on impeachment in 1998 as members of the House of Representatives who said they would vote in the Senate. "This is not a criminal trial, but this is something that the Founding Fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics."

"So therefore, anybody taking an oath tomorrow can have a pre-opinion; it's not a jury box," King asked Schumer.

"Many do," Schumer responded. "And then they change. In fact, it's also not like a jury box in the sense that people will call us and lobby us. You don't have jurors called and lobbied and things like that. I mean, it's quite different than a jury. And we're also the judge."

A day later, the Republican National Committee attacked Schumer in a press release for previous comments in the House saying there was no basis for impeachment.

"No self-respecting jury would allow somebody who's already formed an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused," then-RNC Chairman Jim Nicholson said, "but Chuck Schumer has loudly proclaimed that he's pre-judged the case. He's already announced that he's decided the President shouldn't be impeached, much less removed from office."

Schumer responded to the RNC press release on NBC's "Meet the Press" several days later.

"The Republican National Committee put out a statement saying that you were a House member on the Judiciary Committee, you announced that you would not impeach the president of the United States," host Tim Russert asked. "That therefore, you are not an impartial juror in the Senate and should recuse yourself."

Schumer responded the Senate was not like a judicial body.

"Right," Schumer said. "Well, first, I found it curious that three of us had to take positions because of our positions in the House: then-Congressman Bunning, Congressman Crapo and myself. They criticized me without mentioning the other two, who also took a position. But let's remember this, Tim: The Founding Fathers -- whose wisdom just knocks my socks off every day, it really does -- set this process up to be in the Senate, not at the Supreme Court, not in some judicial body."

"Every day, for instance, hundreds of people call us up and lobby us on one side and the other. You can't do that with a juror," he added. "The standard is different. It's supposed to be a little bit judicial and a little bit legislative-political. That's how it's been."



The point, of course, is that impeachment is an explicitly political act, an explicitly political remedy. The oath requires a promise of "impartial justice," but I don't believe that Schumer will abide by that promise any more than you believe McConnell will. And if you recuse everyone who has already made up their minds, you'd have Susan Collins left. Maybe.




tl;dr version: I don't like any of this any more than you do, but none of it violates any sort of "norms."

[DCHawk1]

why, on a practical level, does potus want to prevent the senate from hearing from a con man, a professional liar under indictment for fraud?

and if Parnas DOES have dirt on the Bidens, wouldn't potus want the guy singing like a bird?

When's the last time any new information came out on this topic that was materially good for Trump?

It's just not that complicated - if Parnas (or any of the senior officials whose testimony the White House has blocked) - had information that was, on the balance, materially good for Trump, the testimony would be permitted.

I don't think there's any question this is the case.

Parnas is full of shit.

But then, so is Trump.

[DCHawk1]

Is that different from the House? If not then why are you whining about how the House did things?

Try to keep up.

I merely pointed out that the whining -- YOUR whining -- that the senate won't do what you want it to is rich, given that the Dems could have, literally, done whatever they wanted to in the House but chose not to.

Which, I think, means that you're confirming my point, but bitching at me about it for some reason.

The House and the Senate were doing two separate things. I dont expect an indictment proceeding in criminal court to function under identical rules as a court trial and I didnt expect the House investigation to function under identical rules as the Senate trial.

They are different proceedings with different purposes. They called the necessary witnesses in the House to reach a decision on approving the article's of impeachment. It wasn't the goal of that proceeding to make the full case for both sides; that's what the trial is for. Especially when you consider the level of obstruction from the White House in making the relevant persons and documents available.

Sure, I would.have preferred if the White House didnt obstruct the House investigation and had allowed all relevant persons to testify and would have turned over all relevant documents that were requested of them


But they didnt. Now the Senate has the opportunity to make those same requests and they most definitely should.

Voting to do this without witnesses is different than requesting witnesses and being stonewalled. I'd the Senate makes the same requests for these witnesses and is again stonewalled then we'll see what happens. I just have a problem with not making the request.

meh

This is a long-winded and pointless effort to expand on the whine that the Senate should do what you want it to.

[ousdahl]

I suppose the only info that has been materially good for Trump was the news that his GOP homies were not gonna be impartial.

bear in mind, Parnas is under indictment. The dude got caught at the airport trying to flee the country, fer cryin out loud. Would he come clean and tell the truth as a matter of plea bargaining? Is he really gonna try to pull one on the Senate, too?

[twocoach]

Try to keep up.

I merely pointed out that the whining -- YOUR whining -- that the senate won't do what you want it to is rich, given that the Dems could have, literally, done whatever they wanted to in the House but chose not to.

Which, I think, means that you're confirming my point, but bitching at me about it for some reason.

The House and the Senate were doing two separate things. I dont expect an indictment proceeding in criminal court to function under identical rules as a court trial and I didnt expect the House investigation to function under identical rules as the Senate trial.

They are different proceedings with different purposes. They called the necessary witnesses in the House to reach a decision on approving the article's of impeachment. It wasn't the goal of that proceeding to make the full case for both sides; that's what the trial is for. Especially when you consider the level of obstruction from the White House in making the relevant persons and documents available.

Sure, I would.have preferred if the White House didnt obstruct the House investigation and had allowed all relevant persons to testify and would have turned over all relevant documents that were requested of them


But they didnt. Now the Senate has the opportunity to make those same requests and they most definitely should.

Voting to do this without witnesses is different than requesting witnesses and being stonewalled. I'd the Senate makes the same requests for these witnesses and is again stonewalled then we'll see what happens. I just have a problem with not making the request.

meh

This is a long-winded and pointless effort to expand on the whine that the Senate should do what you want it to.

It sounds like you want the Senate to do the same thing and are just arguing to argue.

[DCHawk1]

I suppose the only info that has been materially good for Trump was the news that his GOP homies were not gonna be impartial.

bear in mind, Parnas is under indictment. The dude got caught at the airport trying to flee the country, fer cryin out loud. Would he come clean and tell the truth as a matter of plea bargaining? Is he really gonna try to pull one on the Senate, too?

Well...that's a double-edged sword, no?

"Tell the Senate whatever it takes to get Trump convicted," and we'll go easy on you..."

[DCHawk1]

The House and the Senate were doing two separate things. I dont expect an indictment proceeding in criminal court to function under identical rules as a court trial and I didnt expect the House investigation to function under identical rules as the Senate trial.

They are different proceedings with different purposes. They called the necessary witnesses in the House to reach a decision on approving the article's of impeachment. It wasn't the goal of that proceeding to make the full case for both sides; that's what the trial is for. Especially when you consider the level of obstruction from the White House in making the relevant persons and documents available.

Sure, I would.have preferred if the White House didnt obstruct the House investigation and had allowed all relevant persons to testify and would have turned over all relevant documents that were requested of them


But they didnt. Now the Senate has the opportunity to make those same requests and they most definitely should.

Voting to do this without witnesses is different than requesting witnesses and being stonewalled. I'd the Senate makes the same requests for these witnesses and is again stonewalled then we'll see what happens. I just have a problem with not making the request.

meh

This is a long-winded and pointless effort to expand on the whine that the Senate should do what you want it to.

It sounds like you want the Senate to do the same thing and are just arguing to argue.

No.

I'm just saying that they CAN do whatever they want to do. I'd prefer they call every witness they can. But whining about it now, after the House had -- AND STILL HAS -- the opportunity to do all of this is disingenuous.

[DCHawk1]

In fact, if McConnell does hold a sham trial with no witnesses, then the Dems should rejoice.

They can go back to the well and call Parnas...and Bolton, and anyone else they want to. And if they have the dirt, they destroy not just Trump but the enablers as well.