|
Cable Guy posted:The GOP will keep insisting we need to hear from the whistle-blower. So so far we've heard from If they try to force the other people (Bolton, Mulvaney, Perry, etc.) to testify, it will end up going to the Supreme Court and just drag out. By the time it gets resolved it will totally lose steam. I think they absolutely should impeach now, taking their refusal to testify as evidence, and call them before the Senate.
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:this is an interesting theory. to summarize, the house managers can issue subpoenas for testimony during the senate trial, and Justice Roberts directly and immediately rules on any objections to those subpoenas. Given that you won't enforce a subpoena without Roberts' vote anyway, this will allow the House to get what is effectively an immediate supreme court ruling on the testimony of any of the witnesses who have refused to appear - and accordingly, they're not giving up the chance to get testimony from people by quickly moving to a trial. Just moving this excellent post from USPOL into here
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:If they try to force the other people (Bolton, Mulvaney, Perry, etc.) to testify, it will end up going to the Supreme Court and just drag out. By the time it gets resolved it will totally lose steam. I think they absolutely should impeach now, taking their refusal to testify as evidence, and call them before the Senate. The Chief Justice will be presiding over the trial. If he signs the subpoena himself, who are they going to appeal to? While I don't doubt that some people will defy a subpoena coming straight from the Supreme Court itself, enforcement of it should be fairly immediate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The Chief Justice will be presiding over the trial. If he signs the subpoena himself, who are they going to appeal to? enforcement by who/what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
The Senate not upholding their rules and openly defying the (Republican) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is a constitutional crisis. Since we live in the dumbest timeline, I suppose it's possible, but I think the hand wringing over this is not merited
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
I’m baffled by the simple truth which is: every single person that testified, testified that the transcript of the call is accurate to their knowledge. Even the person being impeached does not disagree that that the transcript of the call is accurate. In fact he thinks it’s perfect. Who has the final authority to plainly rule on whether what was done on the call is legally wrong? is that Roberts? A jury? all these witnesses saying the same thing is great and all but the loving guy in the hot seat doesn’t even dispute that what he said was accurate
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
mdemone posted:enforcement by who/what? Federal Marshals
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:The Senate not upholding their rules and openly defying the (Republican) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is a constitutional crisis. Since we live in the dumbest timeline, I suppose it's possible, but I think the hand wringing over this is not merited The senate can change the rules with a majority vote
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
Andronian posted:Who has the final authority to plainly rule on whether what was done on the call is legally wrong? The Senate decides (like a jury).
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
Andronian posted:I’m baffled by the simple truth which is: every single person that testified, testified that the transcript of the call is accurate to their knowledge. Even the person being impeached does not disagree that that the transcript of the call is accurate. In fact he thinks it’s perfect. The jury is the Senate. 66 senators have to agree that the call is bad enough to remove the president.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
like i just feel like in almost any other trial there’s some sort of he said she said thing going on, where we don’t have the official transcript public and we kinda have to take the witness’ word on what happened on the call and what words were said but NOBODY DISPUTES THE TRANSCRIPT. so like ?????
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:The senate can change the rules with a majority vote We all know this. There's isn't going to be a majority to change the rules on a whim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
Andronian posted:
It has to be prosecuted, so I'm presuming a judge or jury after Barr is replaced
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
Andronian posted:like i just feel like in almost any other trial there’s some sort of he said she said thing going on, where we don’t have the official transcript public and we kinda have to take the witness’ word on what happened on the call and what words were said Think of it like all the times a cop ends up in front of a jury with body camera footage of them shooting a kid. Everyone knows what happened. The jury is protecting the defendant because they're on the same team.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
Andronian posted:like i just feel like in almost any other trial there’s some sort of he said she said thing going on, where we don’t have the official transcript public and we kinda have to take the witness’ word on what happened on the call and what words were said I think what you're feelings/describing is what will be the audacity for the Senate Republican's to rule that what Trump did wasn't a crime with such a preponderance of evidence. Welcome to hellworld friend. Your ticket # is 9,998,383,750,000 (Bonus Respect Points for whomever gets the reference).
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
mdemone posted:enforcement by who/what? Unfortunately by agencies in the executive branch. But if we get to a point where the executive refuses and the senate still won't remove, well it's all over at that point anyway, ya'll have fun, feel free to come visit me in Copenhagen or wherever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Welcome to hellworld friend. Your ticket # is 9,998,383,750,000. drat, overpopulation got out of control fast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The Chief Justice will be presiding over the trial. If he signs the subpoena himself, who are they going to appeal to? Right, I'm saying I'm fine with them forcing them to testify at the Senate part, but they shouldn't wait for them to testify in the current House phase.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:Right, I'm saying I'm fine with them forcing them to testify at the Senate part, but they shouldn't wait for them to testify in the current House phase. Based on Schiff's closer and subsequent reporting last night, that's exactly what they intend to do. btw, Predictit odds for impeachment are still at 80% which is insane. I don't gamble there anymore but it sure is tempting
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:Right, I'm saying I'm fine with them forcing them to testify at the Senate part, but they shouldn't wait for them to testify in the current House phase. It's sounding like they'll only have to wait till Monday to get a ruling on Bolton, which doesn't seem like a huge ask.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Unfortunately by agencies in the executive branch. But if we get to a point where the executive refuses and the senate still won't remove, well it's all over at that point anyway, ya'll have fun, feel free to come visit me in Copenhagen or wherever. what? federal courts enforce subpoenas all the loving time, their ability to do so is practically unrelated to the executive just because the house can't enforce a subpoena effectively (without going to a federal court! which they are only not doing because it takes a long time and we don't have a long time) has absolutely nothing to do with whether a subpoena issued by the Senate signed by the Chief Justice can be effectively enforced
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Based on Schiff's closer and subsequent reporting last night, that's exactly what they intend to do. By Impeachment do the mean the house vote (which is the actual impeachment vote) or the Senate's conviction vote following a trial?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Unfortunately by agencies in the executive branch. But if we get to a point where the executive refuses and the senate still won't remove, well it's all over at that point anyway, ya'll have fun, feel free to come visit me in Copenhagen or wherever. Fortunately, the Presidency has limited ability to fire anyone in the civil service who is not a direct appointee.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:By Impeachment do the mean the house vote (which is the actual impeachment vote) or the Senate's removal vote following a trial? House passing articles of impeachment in Trump's first term
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:By Impeachment do the mean the house vote (which is the actual impeachment vote) or the Senate's removal vote following a trial? House vote. Predictit has weird odds when things are basically a sure thing. You can use that to take advantage of arbitrage, but the betting limits make it hard to make a lot of money that way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
KillHour posted:House vote. Predictit has weird odds when things are basically a sure thing. You can use that to take advantage of arbitrage, but the betting limits make it hard to make a lot of money that way. Yeah but usually it isn't this far away from reality. People laugh at predictit but the betting limits make it harder for one party to manipulate the market and it's common knowledge that well connected (but not high level) people on the Hill use it all the time to do sort of legal insider trading
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
I think its pretty clear we will get a Senate trial that abides to all the rules. The way out for the GOP right now is to hold the trial without any issues or attempts to undermine it, and then claim that removing the president is the most severe step that can be taken, and hasn't been done in modern times, so the evidence needed to be 100% convincing and compelling, and while it was certainly troubling, it didn't meet their standards to take the most drastic move of removing Trump from office. They also have the "election year" defense, and say they will leave it to the voters to determine whether Trump deserves to be in office. Any attempts to sabotage the process now just makes it more obvious that Trump is guilty. Get things over to the Senate as quickly as possible, and burn up a chunk of Trump's re-election year on impeachment and consuming all of his time defending himself on that front.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:I think its pretty clear we will get a Senate trial that abides to all the rules. The way out for the GOP right now is to hold the trial without any issues or attempts to undermine it, and then claim that removing the president is the most severe step that can be taken, and hasn't been done in modern times, so the evidence needed to be 100% convincing and compelling, and while it was certainly troubling, it didn't meet their standards to take the most drastic move of removing Trump from office. They also have the "election year" defense, and say they will leave it to the voters to determine whether Trump deserves to be in office. "Nonsense, this is an election year." is gonna get real old
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
eke out posted:what? federal courts enforce subpoenas all the loving time, their ability to do so is practically unrelated to the executive Clearly I'm not super well-versed on all this. But my point stands, if whoever for whatever reason can't or won't enforce a subpoena by Roberts and the senate still won't remove and the cabinet won't 25th, then law has broken down and it's all over. Which is to say that I think someone would enforce it. ReidRansom fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Yeah but usually it isn't this far away from reality. People laugh at predictit but the betting limits make it harder for one party to manipulate the market and it's common knowledge that well connected (but not high level) people on the Hill use it all the time to do sort of legal insider trading True. 20% of 850 is $170, which is a pretty good take. You're out that $850 for a couple weeks though. Then there's fees and taxes and such.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Republicans don't care about truth anymore. They only care about power. And using that power to damage their political enemies. Really? Maybe I'm naive, but I think they must despise him for being the catalyst that drove voters out in massive waves to the past two elections to vote Republicans out of office. He is singly responsible for the threat to their legacy and security of power. It would be so easy for them to vote to impeach them and retain their seats by proclaiming to their constituents and back-alley supporters alike that they repudiate Trump and his now-exposed filthy corruption which has weakened Americans' security and the US's global reputation...vote for me again, look how principled I am, looking out for your best interests (PS to all my collaborators: at least I know to keep my corruption discreet).
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
KillHour posted:True. 20% of 850 is $170, which is a pretty good take. You're out that $850 for a couple weeks though. Then there's fees and taxes and such. Not to be pedantic, but 80 cents to a dollar is a 25% gain. That's a lot of free money, unless there's some inside baseball going on that we don't know about
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
Andronian posted:I’m baffled by the simple truth which is: every single person that testified, testified that the transcript of the call is accurate to their knowledge. Even the person being impeached does not disagree that that the transcript of the call is accurate. In fact he thinks it’s perfect. What I want to know is can the Dems subpeona that unredacted transcript that Morrison ordered put in the super-secret server.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
Can't the Senate have the whole thing dismissed with enough votes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
Oracle posted:What I want to know is can the Dems subpeona that unredacted transcript that Morrison ordered put in the super-secret server. I’d love to see that too, just out of curiosity, but it honestly isn’t relevant, the crimes part is fully public anyway. It only really comes down to whether “hey investigate the Bidens thx” is corrupt or not. And it’s sometimes hard for me to believe that is somehow a question that doesn’t have a 100% definitive answer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:Can't the Senate have the whole thing dismissed with enough votes? Yeah, but the assumption by nearly everyone is that they don't have enough votes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:Yeah, but the assumption by nearly everyone is that they don't have enough votes. Don't they have 53 R's and need 51 votes? Who are the R's that will turn?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:Don't they have 53 R's and need 51 votes? Who are the R's that will turn? I think there's at least 3 who are in for tough re-election fights in 2020 and if they voted to not even have the Senate Trial they'd be ensuring defeat. Really, dismissing the Senate trial would be worse than holding it and just not voting to convict.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
there's also the freshman class of 2018 on the GOP side which might take the long view and think 'well i got 4 years to deal with possible fallout from this' (eg hello romney)
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
oxsnard posted:Just moving this excellent post from USPOL into here If they haven't deposed or interviewed them, they would be crazy to subpoena them to testify.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:47
|
|