The Defense Rests: GOP Leaders Reportedly Considering Not Calling a Single Witness

And, more importantly, it will also go down as an acquittal...

 

I think that's a good analysis.

It is startling how many of his "team" have been found guilty by courts of law of doing stuff that Trump wanted them to do, how many he has dumped for not being yes-men, his work to marshall foreign interference in our democracy, his action on his own claim that he as presdient is above all law - in fact, beyond all invesigation.

And, we absolutely will see a strong unified GOP attempt to support ALL his claims and crimes, defeating the very important right of congressional oversight.

 

I am saying it was NOT okay.

 

The minor races have been split and within 2/3% points. And all said races occurred before you tried calling the POTUS a criminal vis-a-vis Ukraine without any evidence suggesting such.

 

Actually, Rudy Giuliani began his investigation before Biden became a candidate. So that timing doesn't exactly fly.

 

You mean Sondland's testimony where he didn't hear from "anyone in the world" that the President wanted a quid pro quo, and where VP Pence flatly denied Sondland's fingering his involvement? Which is no less than Roger Stone and Michael Cohen, but Schiff protected his baby witness.

Sondland committed perjury AND changed his testimony, THREE times. That's not a witness, that's a saboteur of your case.

 

Hmmm...Beyond the Hoopla of the rallies, a lot of Republicans have left the Party. My guess is that most of the genuine conservatives will move to the Libertarians, rather than the Democrats. Even Fox (aside from a few of their pundits) is wavering in its support. And, the Democrats are like Goldilocks and the Three Bears. They'll be OK if they pick the porridge that is nether too hot or too cold...a left of centrists, neither too old or too young. Big win coming next November, yielding a Democratic Congress, wherein the battles will be fought between the left leaning House and the Centrist Senate. We have a lot of damage to correct...climate change...infrastructure...education...healthcare...and returning to strong collective security in foreign policy.

 

It wasn't just his testimony. Remember that his conversaion was overheard - including the Trump side.

And, yes. Sondland had to admit that - changing his story.

That's the power of first person testimony - it can trip up those who are part of the coverup.

 

Sondland claims it's overheard, overheard by whom exactly? No, his continual changes of "no one in the world heard" but "there's absolutely a quid pro quo", do not fit. At all. In a criminal court, the jury would've already been instructed not to take his testimony into account.

Liars don't get sanctified in court, just Adam Schiff's court.

 

Yes - a LOT of damage to correct.

My guess is that centrists will be less inclined to continue with a trillion dollars of deficit spending - regardless of what it might do for the wealthy and the economy.

My view is that it's not going to be fast, though. We've taken other actions in strong directions such as COINTELPRO and the internal security oversteps of the Bush administration. Those civil rights issuues take a long time to win back. And, Republians have populated our judiciary with highly partisan and totally unqualified judges. Also, he's working hard to defeat our intel organizations, Department of State and others - which again can not be rapidly restored once talent has been driven out, influence has been removed and citizens have been given the view that these are not to be trusted.

 

I don't think that is right. Got a link?

 

Overheard by Holmes. Did you nor watch his testimony?

 

Well, when you use "informants" to dig up dirt on a political rival(of Hillary Clinton's) during the 2016 election, lie about the reason and evidence behind it, sure we have very little reason to trust these organizations moving forward.

Including a now-known CIA operative inside of the campaign. But sure, Trump's the corrupt one lol.

 

And he conveniently said this while Holmes was sitting right next to him, which would pressure the witness into saying anything. If Sondland's claim is true, they should have come on separate days to avoid let's say the "appearance" of pressuring Holmes. Oh, who am I kidding this was never going to be done properly with respect to both defense and the prosecution.

 

Sigh. Those that KNOW say no qpq, blah blah blah. Everything else is speculation and presumptions and assumptions. That’s just not enough. It’s not. You can believe it is, and pretend all those OPINIONS about what Trump meant and believed are just that, opinions. They aren’t facts. They don’t back anything up except a belief y’all had since the moment he announced: he’s crooked. Since he won: gonna impeach him.

He might very well be crooked, but you’re going to have to catch him dead to rights and y’all haven’t come anywhere close.

Anyways, enjoy. I’m sure he’ll be elected in 2020 despite the best efforts of the DNC to prevent that.

 

You just aren't getting what is going on here.

The role of the House is to be the prosecutor. They are working on the charges.

The Senate gets to be the court. In that court, the House will be the prosecutor.

Prosecutors are faced with lying witnesses ALL THE TIME. That is NOTHING new. All those folks that Muller convicted were liars, and supported by liars.

And, if Trump were to be innocent, he could releast executive branch employees who know to testify as the Constitution supports, and he could answer questions himself.

In our justice system, defenants CAN provide information to the prosecutor to demonstrate innocence. But, instead Trump is stonewalling congress - stating that congress has no rights to oversight and that the president is above not just crime, but even investigation!!

It's time for the GOP to stop lying about this process - even though that is the ONLY defense of Trump that they have be left with.

 

That''s just false. There is first person testimony linking Trump to the quid pro quo. There is plenty of other evidence, too.

Why would you want to elect a president who has very clearly used foreign infuence in our elections, who has blocked efforts to protect our elections against Russian interference, who has declared himself above the law, who has denied the power of congress to exercise oversight that is guaranteed by our constitution???

This is a MAJOR step toward tyranny. In fact, this is EXACTLY why we suggest that other countries absolutely should NOT use our form of government - the fact that it can be perverted in exactly the way that Trump is perverting it.

 

They did give evidence on separate days. Holmes gave his evidence with Hills.

 

Holmes.

Prosecutors ALWAYS face lying witnesses. This is nothing new to prosecution - and certainly not to investigation.

 

And said witnesses undermine a case, which is why they tend to be avoided if at all possible. Prosecutors want the case to be clean, so that a jury(the senators in this case) can consciously vote to convict.

If you wanted(and you need) Republican votes on the Senate, Adam Schiff should've used that closed door deposition to nail down one and exactly ONE testimony which the witness would claim is the truth.

 

It was for the Dems, you don't matter.

 

If it wasn't spurious it wasn't well articulated. I'll leave it at that so as not to spoil the rest of your post.

----------------
Your argument here is whole, understandable and well put, with no unreasonable vagueness nor does it suppose the reader understands the world the same way you do. I am honestly excited to discuss the possibilities presented here. I dare say it's good faith debate and discussion, which is a tragically rare thing on these boards today. - thank you.
------------------

Would the SCOTUS, in this hypothetical, review the case immediately or would another branch (say the LB) have to get it into a lower court to be reviewed initially?

The SCOTUS has never acted w/out having a lower court involved, nor has it ever acted w/out someone requesting they do so through an official channel. Either would, in my estimation, disqualify immediate even if they act PDQ once they're "on the case".
If the SCOTUS has done either, please cite a source to substantiate the claim and help me understand your point of view.

(I suspect that's where our definitions of immediately differ, we may have to agree to disagree)

Would the DoW by the EB be unconstitutional at the point of DoW or would we have to wait until the JB (SCOTUS) finds that it is?
Would the LB be justified in Impeaching the EB before such a finding, or can they act before hand?

I would argue that, yes the EB's actions would be unconstitutional at the point of DoW, and they would be justified in Impeachment w/ or without the JB weighing in.

Relating it back to the current Real Life is tricky though, because it's not nearly so clear as whether or not the implied power of executive privilege supersedes the implied power of subpoena.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/congres...ve-privilege-coming-showdown-between-branches

Up until now when these 2 implied powers are at odds, the SCOTUS gets called in, or the EB and LB find a compromise to avoid a clash, but in this instance neither party is appealing to the SCOTUS (both are rather imprudently stamping their feet as far as I can tell)

What's more clear but is untested is whether or not the SCOTUS's implied power of Judicial review supersedes the explicit power of the LB (the house specifically) to impeach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States

I don't think the SCOTUS can stop an impeachment by declaring it unconstitutional because Explicit power > Implied Power, and Nixon vs US ruling seems to agree.

What is crystal clear in my mind is that BOTH sides are engaging in dangerous brinkmanship, the consequences of which will likely fundamentally change the nature of the implied powers of all 3 branches, and potentially lead disaster for the US if things come to blows.
-------------------------
We are looking at an unprecedented occurrence wherein many assumptions will be challenged. Anyone who claims they "know" how this will turn out is bluffing or ignorant.

(Bragging rights for accurate predictions as per usual and yes I expect some jerk who got lucky to make me it my words )

 

Oh, good lord!!

 

They did that.

They did way more than that.

You have to be careful here. The GOP keeps making claims like that the testimony is all heresay (absolutely false) or that pursuit of past Trump crimes should mean that Trump cant be guilty of these crimes, or their complaint that they can't call Biden's son - when Biden's son has nothing to do with it, etc., etc.

They love to say they want to question the witness whose name is not known - but that testimony is not included and Trump has taken a policy of threatening multiple witnesses including that one - REPEATEDLY.

Trusting the GOP to defend this witness is just plain silly.

All we're seeing from the GOP is complaints about process. And, their last two days of loud whiney nonsense is really irritating, as it has nothing to do with whether Trump is guilty or whether the evidence that proves that is somehow not fully availabl to all.

 

Lifetime appointments have a way of changing one's perspective. I am willing too wait to see how they perform. Remember, federal judges may also be impeached.