The Trump Impeachment Thread

[Grifman]

The delay will be used to hammer at the senators who might be in favor of allowing witnesses. McConnell doesn’t call the shots on this as Schumer can call a vote on each witness and McConnell can’t prevent the vote. If four gop senators vote with dems to allow a witness to present evidence it happens.

'
What's the value in calling witnesses? Trump will just claim absolute executive immunity as he already has. I don't see anything changing. You know there's no way those people are going to testify because if they do, Trump is sunk (though I'm certain the Republican fallback will be that Trump's actions are not an impeachable offense). Somebody tell me what value this has.

[Holman]

The delay will be used to hammer at the senators who might be in favor of allowing witnesses. McConnell doesn’t call the shots on this as Schumer can call a vote on each witness and McConnell can’t prevent the vote. If four gop senators vote with dems to allow a witness to present evidence it happens.

'
What's the value in calling witnesses? Trump will just claim absolute executive immunity as he already has. I don't see anything changing. You know there's no way those people are going to testify because if they do, Trump is sunk (though I'm certain the Republican fallback will be that Trump's actions are not an impeachable offense). Somebody tell me what value this has.

At a bare minimum, even if witnesses are blocked, it forces GOP senators to openly support a sham trial. Not trying for it gives them another free pass.

[malchior]

Here is the math as I see it - let's examine the status quo. Right now the President is impeached but the Senate Majority leader has indicated he is going to take cues from the President on how to proceed with the trial. The WH hasn't really put forward a real strategy. They have tried various talking points but they've left McConnell hanging to dry a bit. And McConnell technically can not proceed yet. He only has so much control over the process at the moment.

Based on the Senate's own rules the Senate relies on the appointment of a managers in the House and the 'transmittal' of the articles. Pelosi controls that side of the equation. And it appears she has adopted the Dean/Tribe strategy to hang this over the President's head. We know to some extent it is grating on Trump because the WH is trying to sell technical story about how he isn't impeached because they haven't sent it to the Senate. Larry Tribe went out of his way today to quote out the House rule that says that Trump is impeached. Whatever - it is a bit of a side show. The idea is to get in Trump's head and put pressure on the GOP Senators. How much pressure is still relatively unknown and the holidays are blunting it a bit.

So what are McConnell's options post-holiday?

Option 1: First is a so-called nuclear option - change the Senate rules to hold a trial without House managers. Some people have said this might not be constitutional and Roberts isn't going to have it. I don't think anyone can figure that math out just yet. It is not certain at all and McConnell might not exercise it unless he knows it'll work. Another x-factor is that he needs to get his people on board with it. That is reasonably possible but some Senators such as Collins have very tough elections ahead.

Likelihood?: It is the move you expect from McConnell because he is amoral and expedient. However, it still feels less than likely at the moment.

Option 2: Do nothing. Many people are not paying attention so politically it isn't very painful at the moment. However, it opens him up to the President losing his mind...which he eventually will. He wants the Senate to defend him as a sign of fealty. Whether he thinks he did nothing wrong or just simply doesn't care Trump still wants the Senate to pass a purity test here. A reason this could be the near-term strategy is that the GOP is much more politically competent messaging wise and I think they can spin this for awhile absent Trump fucking it up.

Likelihood?: High in the short-term over the next week or two but risky because of Trump temper tantrums. Upsides to the GOP is that gridlock here makes it the usual partisan food fight which feeds into their impeachment is partisan narrative. It could be a good option for that reason alone.

Option 3: Agree to call witnesses. This would put a lot of pressure on the WH and GOP senators alike. The WH might refuse and look like it is hiding something. The WH might partially produce in a less than good faith way. I think that might actually become the strategy that emerges over the next few weeks.

Likelihood?: In the short-term there is almost no chance. There are no upsides for the GOP at all. Medium to long-term after they get some scam together it may become reasonably high. The upside will once they get the grift ready is that they will look like they are being forthright while predictably they will be shit bags about the whole thing. The pollyannas in the media will give them credit for being reasonable while ignoring the obvious chicanery. In any case, Trump wants a defense so this feels plausible.

So back to why is this a good thing from the Democratic POV? All of these options pose risk for Trump, the GOP, and the Dems but I think forcing the issue was the best course of risk/reward possible given the political climate.

Option 3 is probably the most likely outcome so the Democrats will look like they extracted a political win. They'll look like they are standing up for their voters and rule of law. All good outcomes.

If the GOP goes for Option 1 then the Dems will have ammo against any of the borderline GOP Senators for re-election who go along with it. That's a win. Margins are going to matter this year.

Option 2 is the worst for the Dems but again Trump at any moment can derail it *and probably will*. That said, it probably isn't worse than the default path as it would have been (more on this right below). Call it a tolerable risk.

Now to the "default path" since we have to look at how this could have played out. The non-stall option had the Dems sending the articles to the Senate for a sham trial. The GOP and Trump would have turned into a victory lap and clear discussion about how this whole thing was a waste of time. They'll eventually still exonerate Trump but the Dems have taken the wind out of that story. They've tainted the option which is about as much victory as you can squeeze out of this.

[Kraken]

The delay will be used to hammer at the senators who might be in favor of allowing witnesses. McConnell doesn’t call the shots on this as Schumer can call a vote on each witness and McConnell can’t prevent the vote. If four gop senators vote with dems to allow a witness to present evidence it happens.

'
What's the value in calling witnesses? Trump will just claim absolute executive immunity as he already has. I don't see anything changing. You know there's no way those people are going to testify because if they do, Trump is sunk (though I'm certain the Republican fallback will be that Trump's actions are not an impeachable offense). Somebody tell me what value this has.

Witness testimony allows the prosecution to keep the charges up to date. Remember, this isn't just about something Trump did as a one-off. His effort to fix the next election is an active, ongoing, evolving crime, with fresh evidence still emerging, and the election is very much in peril. That doesn't change the specific charges that they'll be considering, but rubbing the Senate's collective nose in it in real time adds some powerful perspective (and, I've read, could lead to additional articles of impeachment).

[Zaxxon]

Stop the presses, everyone. Murkowski is once again 'disturbed.'

I imagine she'll remain disturbed right up until the point she votes in lockstep with the GOP.

[Holman]

What happens when Trump's team claims some point of privilege or refuses to produce evidence during the trial?

Does it have to climb through the courts, or does it immediately go to John Roberts, who is presiding right there in the room?

Can you appeal the Chief Justice's decisions?

[Ralph-Wiggum]

As far as I understand it, it goes straight to Roberts and his decisions can’t be appealed

[malchior]

Robert's will be enforcing Senate rules. His judgment on those rules is absolute for these proceedings as far as I know. As to non compliance issues, Roberts will have no mechanism to enforce a ruling. Since the proceedings are political he would almost certainly cede it to the political body present in the chamber.

[Kraken]

Stop the presses, everyone. Murkowski is once again 'disturbed.'

I imagine she'll remain disturbed right up until the point she votes in lockstep with the GOP.

It's a glimmer of hope that other disaffected senators (Romney, Collins, ...?) might join her in forcing Moscow Mitch to deliver a more fair-looking trial that allows witnesses. If no Dems break ranks, we only need four Reps. Somebody has to go first. Maybe Pelosi's stratagem to hold the articles through the holidays is working.

I'm basically out of hope at this point, so I grasp it where I can.

[malchior]

Stop the presses, everyone. Murkowski is once again 'disturbed.'

I imagine she'll remain disturbed right up until the point she votes in lockstep with the GOP.

Woah there - don't get all crazy. After all she voted against Kavanaugh

Spoiler:

after it was certain it wouldn't affect the outcome!

Still! She has an independent streak! She often brings along Collins...well not on one of the two things they mention below. But other times. Most times. Really. She does. BOTH SIDES DAMN IT!

Ms. Murkowski, a moderate with an independent streak, told Anchorage’s NBC affiliate KTUU she opposed “being hand in glove with the defense” and voiced other concerns as the Senate prepares to hold a trial over the two articles of impeachment that the House approved earlier this month.

Ms. Murkowski’s views could prove important. She rarely speaks publicly against Republican leadership, but when she does, she tends to stick with her positions, as when she opposed the confirmation of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and helped torpedo a repeal of the Affordable Care Act. She also tends to bring Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a fellow moderate Republican with her, and only a handful of defections would force the majority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, to switch course on the upcoming impeachment trial.

[El Guapo]

Stop the presses, everyone. Murkowski is once again 'disturbed.'

I imagine she'll remain disturbed right up until the point she votes in lockstep with the GOP.

Woah there - don't get all crazy. After all she voted against Kavanaugh

Spoiler:

after it was certain it wouldn't affect the outcome!

Still! She has an independent streak! She often brings along Collins...well not on one of the two things they mention below. But other times. Most times. Really. She does. BOTH SIDES DAMN IT!

Ms. Murkowski, a moderate with an independent streak, told Anchorage’s NBC affiliate KTUU she opposed “being hand in glove with the defense” and voiced other concerns as the Senate prepares to hold a trial over the two articles of impeachment that the House approved earlier this month.

Ms. Murkowski’s views could prove important. She rarely speaks publicly against Republican leadership, but when she does, she tends to stick with her positions, as when she opposed the confirmation of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and helped torpedo a repeal of the Affordable Care Act. She also tends to bring Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a fellow moderate Republican with her, and only a handful of defections would force the majority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, to switch course on the upcoming impeachment trial.

She was essential to stopping the repeal of the ACA, at least. Given that, there's a non-zero chance that she'll buck leadership on something important again, which is a tiny fragment of hope.

[malchior]

She was essential to stopping the repeal of the ACA, at least. Given that, there's a non-zero chance that she'll buck leadership on something important again, which is a tiny fragment of hope.

Sure but you need Murkowski and 3 other GOP Senators to defect. Even if she drags Collins along who are the other 2? Romney? A weak maybe. Who else? There is no one.

[El Guapo]

She was essential to stopping the repeal of the ACA, at least. Given that, there's a non-zero chance that she'll buck leadership on something important again, which is a tiny fragment of hope.

Sure but you need Murkowski and 3 other GOP Senators to defect. Even if she drags Collins along who are the other 2? Romney? A weak maybe. Who else? There is no one.

Yeah, you'd need a coaltion of Murkowski, Romney, and two senators from blue / purple states that are up for reelection. Two out of Collins, Tillis, McSally...probably one or two other that I'm not thinking of.

It's an absolute long shot given how GOP senators have performed in the Trump era, which is part of why I'm so uncertain about what the endgame is here for Pelosi & Schumer. But it's a nonzero shot, FWIW.

[El Guapo]

Here is the math as I see it - let's examine the status quo. Right now the President is impeached but the Senate Majority leader has indicated he is going to take cues from the President on how to proceed with the trial. The WH hasn't really put forward a real strategy. They have tried various talking points but they've left McConnell hanging to dry a bit. And McConnell technically can not proceed yet. He only has so much control over the process at the moment.

Based on the Senate's own rules the Senate relies on the appointment of a managers in the House and the 'transmittal' of the articles. Pelosi controls that side of the equation. And it appears she has adopted the Dean/Tribe strategy to hang this over the President's head. We know to some extent it is grating on Trump because the WH is trying to sell technical story about how he isn't impeached because they haven't sent it to the Senate. Larry Tribe went out of his way today to quote out the House rule that says that Trump is impeached. Whatever - it is a bit of a side show. The idea is to get in Trump's head and put pressure on the GOP Senators. How much pressure is still relatively unknown and the holidays are blunting it a bit.

So what are McConnell's options post-holiday?

Option 1: First is a so-called nuclear option - change the Senate rules to hold a trial without House managers. Some people have said this might not be constitutional and Roberts isn't going to have it. I don't think anyone can figure that math out just yet. It is not certain at all and McConnell might not exercise it unless he knows it'll work. Another x-factor is that he needs to get his people on board with it. That is reasonably possible but some Senators such as Collins have very tough elections ahead.

Likelihood?: It is the move you expect from McConnell because he is amoral and expedient. However, it still feels less than likely at the moment.

Option 2: Do nothing. Many people are not paying attention so politically it isn't very painful at the moment. However, it opens him up to the President losing his mind...which he eventually will. He wants the Senate to defend him as a sign of fealty. Whether he thinks he did nothing wrong or just simply doesn't care Trump still wants the Senate to pass a purity test here. A reason this could be the near-term strategy is that the GOP is much more politically competent messaging wise and I think they can spin this for awhile absent Trump fucking it up.

Likelihood?: High in the short-term over the next week or two but risky because of Trump temper tantrums. Upsides to the GOP is that gridlock here makes it the usual partisan food fight which feeds into their impeachment is partisan narrative. It could be a good option for that reason alone.

Option 3: Agree to call witnesses. This would put a lot of pressure on the WH and GOP senators alike. The WH might refuse and look like it is hiding something. The WH might partially produce in a less than good faith way. I think that might actually become the strategy that emerges over the next few weeks.

Likelihood?: In the short-term there is almost no chance. There are no upsides for the GOP at all. Medium to long-term after they get some scam together it may become reasonably high. The upside will once they get the grift ready is that they will look like they are being forthright while predictably they will be shit bags about the whole thing. The pollyannas in the media will give them credit for being reasonable while ignoring the obvious chicanery. In any case, Trump wants a defense so this feels plausible.

So back to why is this a good thing from the Democratic POV? All of these options pose risk for Trump, the GOP, and the Dems but I think forcing the issue was the best course of risk/reward possible given the political climate.

Option 3 is probably the most likely outcome so the Democrats will look like they extracted a political win. They'll look like they are standing up for their voters and rule of law. All good outcomes.

If the GOP goes for Option 1 then the Dems will have ammo against any of the borderline GOP Senators for re-election who go along with it. That's a win. Margins are going to matter this year.

Option 2 is the worst for the Dems but again Trump at any moment can derail it *and probably will*. That said, it probably isn't worse than the default path as it would have been (more on this right below). Call it a tolerable risk.

Now to the "default path" since we have to look at how this could have played out. The non-stall option had the Dems sending the articles to the Senate for a sham trial. The GOP and Trump would have turned into a victory lap and clear discussion about how this whole thing was a waste of time. They'll eventually still exonerate Trump but the Dems have taken the wind out of that story. They've tainted the option which is about as much victory as you can squeeze out of this.

I think Option 2 is very, very likely. Only risk is Trump fucking it up as you say, but it's easy enough for McConnell to play the "I'm not focused on what the President is saying, I'm just focused on my job". As enough time passes after the impeachment with no trial, it's easy enough to message "See? I told you there was nothing to all this impeachment nonsense".

I will say re: Option 3 that I expect Republicans will make the offer "ok how about let's agree on a list of witnesses and/or agree to each submit X witnesses", and then insist on Hunter Biden and various witnesses that would be there to "substantiate" various GOP conspiracy theories. Most likely Democrats reject that, at which point they message "see? Democrats don't want a fair list of witnesses, they just want their partisan hacks" and resume Option 2. If Democrats do agree, then they intersperse the real witnesses with the GOP conspiracy theorists and make the trial a confusing partisan mess for most voters.

Option 1 seems like an unnecessary risk for McConnell and Trump, as the media is reasonably likely to cover that as a naked GOP coverup.

[malchior]

Pathetic bullying wimp.

Edit: Someone took down the tweet. And several others. He has been re-tweeting in bursts over the last two days raging at various people. The strategy is working. He is suffering. Good.

[hepcat]

He's pissed off Big Windmill, so hopefully they'll start in on him soon.

[Isgrimnur]

Constitutional immunity

But in an effort to stop Mr. Kupperman from doing so, the White House said on Friday that the president had invoked “constitutional immunity,” leaving Mr. Kupperman uncertain about what to do.

CNN

A federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit that former Trump national security official Charles Kupperman had filed challenging a House subpoena for him to testify in the impeachment inquiry after the chamber withdrew their subpoena.

Judge Richard Leon wrote in a 14-page opinion that there is no expectation that the House will reissue the subpoena, therefore the lawsuit is unnecessary.
...
The House had withdrawn their subpoena for Kupperman's testimony in November, writing in a court case, "The subpoena at issue in this matter has been withdrawn and there is no current intention to reissue it."

WaPo

House lawyers, seeking to avoid delay in the impeachment hearings, asked U.S. District Judge Richard Leon to dismiss a lawsuit Kupperman filed to try to resolve conflicting orders from Congress and the White House over his participation in the investigation into the president.
...
Instead, the House said that in the interest of speed, it would look to the outcome of another case that is further along in judicial proceedings — that involving a subpoena to former White House counsel Donald McGahn. That case raises similar issues of whether the White House can bar high-ranking administration officials from testifying.

[LawBeefaroni]

He's pissed off Big Windmill, so hopefully they'll start in on him soon.

Wind. Wind never changes.

New York City wind turbine topples, crushing parked car

The wind -- of all things -- toppled a New York City wind turbine which then crushed an unoccupied parked car, according to reports.

The incident Monday afternoon in the Bronx had elected officials who represent the area shaking their heads.

“A wind turbine should not be able to be taken down by the wind,” the New York Post quoted Jamaal Bailey, who serves in the New York State Senate, as saying.

It's probably time to create a Wind Force armed services branch to tackle this accursed for.

[Freyland]

I thought that's why we had an Air Force?

[malchior]

I had a thought today with Trump having committed himself to creating a crisis in Iran I have to wonder if he has essentially decided to move on. If so, the Democrats have no good path forward. They needed Trump to pressure McConnell and it didn't happen. Especially since McConnell is taking the option to ignore it. His road forward is ignore or sham trial.

With the release of the OMB email I think they need to seize some initiative and send the articles to the Senate as soon as next week. Let the weekend news cycle work its way through Iran, craft a message, even possibly get it on a Sunday news show, and get the show on the road. Let the Democratic Senators and the House Managers take up the fight for transparency. They'll lose but the fight is worth it alone. They are at risk of getting shut out by the President wielding his war powers indiscriminately and they need to try to stand up for us.

[$iljanus]

Breaking news. Bolton will make himself available to the Senate if subpoenaed. What’s the over/under on that happening with Mitch the Lapdog McConnell pulling the strings.

[El Guapo]

Breaking news. Bolton will make himself available to the Senate if subpoenaed. What’s the over/under on that happening with Mitch the Lapdog McConnell pulling the strings.

How generous of Bolton to offer to comply with a legally mandatory subpoena.

My main question is does he actually want to testify, or is he just saying this knowing that McConnell will make sure to prevent the issuance of a subpoena?

[Defiant]

Couldn't the House Subpoena him? Or has that ship sailed?

[Smoove_B]

Couldn't the House Subpoena him? Or has that ship sailed?

If they write up another article of impeachment (and they should), then sure they could subpoena him but the current articles are now waiting to be handed off to Mitch once he details how the trial will work. That's my understanding, anyway.

Also, F Mitch McConnell. F him right in his face.

[malchior]

Couldn't the House Subpoena him? Or has that ship sailed?

This was an interesting part of the statement to me. He specified Senate. Was that because the House investigations are thought to be done (they are not) or because it is a friendly venue? Who knows but the guy isn't trustworthy so I suspect shenanigans. Which is always the safe bet with anyone still in the Republican party.

[El Guapo]

Couldn't the House Subpoena him? Or has that ship sailed?

Yes in theory, no in practice.

The trick (IIRC) is that Bolton's current position is that in light of the administration telling people not to comply with oversight subpoenas because legal reasons mumble mumble, until the issue is adjudicated by a court (pending) he won't show up in response to a subpoena. I think Bolton is saying that a subpoena to testify at a Senate trial would be different than a House subpoena.

[malchior]

This feels a lot like Lucy holding a football for Charlie Brown to me at this point.

[Scoop20906]

Can the Senate vote to call him as a witness but then not vote to subpoena him or does calling him include the subpoena?

[Jaymann]

I just love it when conservative cunts eat their young.

[LawBeefaroni]

This feels a lot like Lucy holding a football for Charlie Brown to me at this point.

He's just trying to make himself important to and valuable. May be that he's taking bids.

[El Guapo]

The thing is that if Bolton really wanted to testify, he'd have already done so. Unless he's really buying the validity of Trump ordering his staff not to comply with subpoenas, which is unlikely but not impossible.

[Pyperkub]

The thing is that if Bolton really wanted to testify, he'd have already done so. Unless he's really buying the validity of Trump ordering his staff not to comply with subpoenas, which is unlikely but not impossible.

Bolton's a wuss. Schiff should call his bluff and subpoena him from the House.

[Holman]

It's not beyond consideration that the war on Iran is Trump's way of buying Bolton's friendly testimony.

[Defiant]

Whatever the reason, Bolton’s announcement on Monday put Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), not to mention other persuadable Republican senators, in a box. Facts subsequent to the House impeachment have become known that directly pertain to Trump’s conduct and, to boot, a critical witness is now suddenly available. Do Senate Republicans try to sweep all that under the rug, risking that Bolton will later tell his story publicly and incriminate a president whose misdeeds the Senate helped cover up? That would seem intensely unwise.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is in the driver’s seat because she wisely held up the articles of impeachment. She can now turn to the Senate and say: Agree upon rules for the trial that guarantee Bolton’s and other key witnesses’ appearance or we will hold on to the articles and subpoena Bolton ourselves.

Former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller tells me, “There is no legal difference between a subpoena issued by the House and one issued by the Senate, and if Bolton is willing to comply with one, the same should be true for the other.” He adds, “As a political matter, however, it probably makes sense for the House to delay any subpoena to keep the pressure squarely where it belongs — on Senate Republicans.” Vowing to call Bolton in the House could actually make the pressure that much more intense.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ng-bolton/

[Grifman]

The thing is that if Bolton really wanted to testify, he'd have already done so. Unless he's really buying the validity of Trump ordering his staff not to comply with subpoenas, which is unlikely but not impossible.

He believes the Senate will not impeach him. I heard he's got a book coming out soon so this is a way to promote it. Otherwise, why not testify in the House?

[gilraen]

The thing is that if Bolton really wanted to testify, he'd have already done so.

Nah, he wants to sell his book instead of giving away all the plot points for free.

[malchior]

Here is the next bullshit strategy from the GOP. This is an entirely made up theory...like over the last couple of days. However, this is where we are. They know that the only way forward is a sham trial.

[Smoove_B]

Is it Marco's turn or something? He's been posting some grade A nonsense over the last week or so on Twitter. Add him to the list of confirmed sacks of crap, I guess.

[El Guapo]

Is it Marco's turn or something? He's been posting some grade A nonsense over the last week or so on Twitter. Add him to the list of confirmed sacks of crap, I guess.

He's been a confirmed sack of crap for many years now.

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, I knew that (his status as a walking sack of crap) but he seems to have been quiet over the last year or so. Then suddenly in the last week, he's making these inane comments. Maybe I've just been so overwhelmed by the malevolence of others in Trump's orbit his low-key antics haven't hit my news feed until this last week.

I can at least confirm my hatred of Mitch McConnell is unwavering.