I wonder what bombshell will come out on Tuesday? The timing of the State of the Union speech and before the final vote on Wednesday makes it a good day for something secret to come out, I would imagine. What a sad state of affairs. However, if you read history such things have happened since the founding of the country. Such battles have happened since the fall in the garden. So glad we know the end is a good one when we know the Lord!
“Is Schumer Trying to Take Sanders Out by Agreeing to Hold Acquittal Vote AFTER the Iowa Caucuses?”
“The Senate just approved a resolution to delay voting on acquitting President Trump until Wednesday—AFTER the Iowa caucuses, which could doom, or at least seriously hamper, efforts by Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate—Klobuchar, Warren, Sanders, and Bennet—who will now be stuck listening to floor speeches on Monday rather than making last-minute pitches to voters in the critical state.”
—————
I think you will see Bloomberg continue to rise. They want that billion for their own uses, so welcome to the party.
Little Mike didn’t qualify. So they changed the rules for him and his money.
“Democratic Party set to include Michael Bloomberg in debates with change to qualifying requirements”
“The Democratic Party’s governing body said Friday that its presidential contenders won’t have to attract a set number of donors in order to qualify for the Feb. 19 debate in Nevada, in a move that helps billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who is self-funding his campaign.
“To qualify for the Nevada debate stage, candidates may qualify either by (1) meeting a delegate threshold, or (2) meeting a polling threshold,” the Democratic National Committee said in a statement.
For previous primary debates, White House hopefuls had to get both a particular number of donors and reach a set level of support in national or early-state polls. Those requirements have kept Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, from taking part in debates, since he is self-funding his presidential campaign and not accepting donations.
Under the new requirements, politicians can qualify by getting one pledged delegate from the upcoming voting in the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary, or they can make the grade by scoring 10% support in four polls (either national or single state) or 12% support in two single-state polls.”
————-
Ladies and gentlemen, the eventual Democrat nominee…..
“Dershowitz: Candidate Biden Requires More Scrutiny than ‘Just a Has-Been Former Vice President’”
“A presidential candidate, like Joe Biden, requires more scrutiny – not less – Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz explained Thursday in remarks defending President Donald Trump’s desire to get to the bottom of Biden’s use of a billion taxpayer dollars to pressure Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating a corrupt company employing Biden’s inexperienced son, Hunter.
Appearing on Fox News Channel, Dershowitz was asked why he thought any company would pay millions to a person, such as Biden’s son, who has no experience. Dershowitz’s answer: “To buy access”:
“To buy access, of course. Nobody would doubt that – and that’s why it’s worth investigating, and that’s why, if there were to be witnesses, he would have to be called because the president was entitled to say, ‘On the basis of this information, don’t you think this should be an investigation?’”
Dershowitz said that, when someone announces for president, that not only invites, but also requires, greater scrutiny – even if that person is Joe Biden:”
“Last year, a woman accused her husband of having an affair with Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) in a divorce filing. Later, it was reported that Omar had been paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to the consulting firm run by that man, Tim Mynett.
During the fourth quarter of 2019, Omar’s campaign paid the E Street Group $215,000 for consulting, direct mail, research services, travel expenses, advertisements, and graphic design.
The committee brought in $403,000 in donations during that time, spending more than half of it on services from E Street Group. During the first three quarters of 2019, Omar’s committee paid E Street Group $310,000, meaning the amount increased dramatically in Q4.
Complaints to the Federal Election Commission about the arrangement have not been resolved, according to the New York Post.”
Just admit the obvious Mitt, like Bloomberg did, and make the party switch official. It’s where your loyalties lie anyway. Even with no evidence, you chose the route you thought would harm the president. You’re disloyal without reason or cause.
AJ – I decided to take a little time to look into it myself, and found that since the trial portion of the impeachment takes place in the Senate, witnesses are indeed supposed to be called. Here are two links that mention this.
Keep in mind what you are reading are the rules agreed upon for previous impeachment proceedings. Those are not the rules agreed to this time.
Witnesses are not required.
“In impeachment trials, the full Senate may receive evidence and take testimony, or
may order the Presiding Officer to appoint a committee of Senators to serve this purpose.
If the latter option is employed, the committee will present a certified transcript of the
proceedings to the full Senate. The Senate will determine questions of competency,
relevancy, and materiality. The Senate may also take further testimony in open Senate,
or may order that the entire trial be before the full Senate.31”
Note the May also take…. Doesn’t say you have to, but you may. Or you may just go by the evidence the House submits.
I’d also note that again, they could have filed subpoenas and gone thru the process. The House chose not to it. The Senate is not obligated to supplement the House’s shoddy case. Why would they?
————–
“The managers for the House present the first argument.32 During the course of the trial
evidence is presented, and witnesses may be examined and cross-examined.
The Senate has not adopted standard rules of evidence to be used during an
impeachment trial. The Presiding Officer possesses authority to rule on all evidentiary
questions. However, the Presiding Officer may choose to put any such issue to a vote
before the Senate. Furthermore, any Senator may request that a formal vote be taken on
a particular question.” 33 Final arguments in the trial will be presented by each side, with
the managers for the House of Representatives opening and closing.34
C. Judgment of the Senate.
When the presentation of evidence and argument by the managers and counsel for
the respondent has concluded, the Senate as a whole meets in closed session to deliberate.
Voting on whether to convict on the articles of impeachment commences upon return to
open session, with yeas and nays being tallied as to each article separately.35 A conviction
on an article of impeachment requires a two-thirds vote of those Senators present.”
Again, May be examined and cross examined, not must be.
They chose the second option, to put the question of additional witnesses to a full vote, held yesterday, they lost, case closed. No witnesses. We heard the Dems case, it’s now time to vote and end this nonsense. Again, Democrat leadership owns this shoddy, incomplete, and unjustified farce. They never issued the subpoenas required to get Bolton and Mulvaneys testimony when they had the opportunity to fight that out in the courts. They ignored the process, the right and legal way to do this, because it would have drug it out beyond Nov. and then they couldn’t use their “conviction” against Trump.
————-
These are just a couple of quick ones from this link you provided….
Witnesses aren’t even mentioned until the VI article. And again, nowhere does it say witnesses are required. and there was no “essential” witnesses “conducive to the ends of justice” among them. If there were, that would have been handled in the House, where appropriate.
—————-
Note article XI. Again take testimony, if they see fit to do so. They didn’t, because there wasn’t a need and their evidence didn’t prove their case.
Nothing in either link says they must be called or even that they are “supposed” to be. Sorry, it’s just not there.
That’s this whole thing in a nutshell. There’s never been any there, there.
“Joe Biden Argued Against Impeachment Witnesses In 1999: ‘The Senate Need Not Hold A Full Blown Trial’
In a secret 1999 memo to Democrat senators, Biden argued that the Senate had no obligation to call witnesses or hear live testimony before rendering an impeachment verdict.
“The Senate need not hold a ‘full blown’ trial” with witnesses and testimony, then-Sen. Biden wrote. “[T]he Senate may dismiss articles of impeachment without holding a full trial or taking any evidence.”
“Put another way, the Constitution does not impose on the Senate the duty to hold a trial,” he continued. “In fact the Senate need not hold a trial even though the House wishes to present evidence and hold a full trial[.]””
“Senators sit as jurors and judges. Hardly sequestered, they run to the cameras during breaks to hold dueling press conferences. And they set their own rules, which they can also change.
“An impeachment trial was never meant to be a real trial,” says Ray Smock, former historian for the U.S. House of Representatives. It is a constitutional process taking place in a political environment, a “power play” between the executive and legislative branches, he says.
“Once power is involved,” he adds, “you can’t escape political machinations.”
Nowhere is this judicial and political mixture more consequential than on the issue of witnesses.
Democrats desperately want to call them, as well as subpoena documents, in order to bolster their allegation that the president shook down a foreign leader – withholding military aid and a White House meeting, for his own political benefit. They pound the point that a trial has witnesses, and to be fair, this trial must also have them.
But the Constitution is silent on this question – and pretty skimpy on instructions for impeachment generally.
“Because this is not a trial, there is no guarantee of witnesses,” says Mr. Smock.
Senators have agreed to vote on whether to have witnesses, probably on Friday. They wanted to wait for both sides to finish their presentations, which now have concluded, and for senators to ask questions of the two teams on Wednesday and Thursday. In a chamber controlled by 53 Republicans, Democrats need four Republicans to split from the pack if they want witnesses.”
—————
The Dems made their pitch for witnesses. It failed. Case closed.
Too bad there isn’t a more straight-forward procedure (“this is the way you do it each and every time”). A lot of people, even quite intelligent ones, are confused by, or ill-informed about it all.
Well make no mistake there is a conscious effort underway to ensure the confusion continues. They have to keep their base outraged and engaged, and that’s easier to accomplish with vague and unclear, or open to interpretation type rules. 🙂
Not presumably forever; not perhaps for a day after Nov. 3, 2020; not on every issue or in every way until then. But for the time being one has to say: We are all Democrats now.
Conserving conservatism by voting for a party that supports: unlimited abortion until birth, abolishing private health insurance, limiting the First and Second Amendments, banning fossil fuels, ending right-to-work, open borders, etc. etc. etc. https://t.co/on0oMXBrzp
“Andrew McCarthy: In Trump impeachment trial, Senate right to block new witness testimony”
“The Senate was right to vote Friday against hearing new witness testimony at President Trump’s impeachment trial. The Democrats’ demand for new witnesses at the trial was a red herring – a talking point that had some surface appeal but, upon scrutiny, was nonsense.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and the other impeachment managers claim that there have been no witnesses in the trial. They said before the Senate voted 51-49 Friday to block more witnesses that if Republicans did note vote to approve subpoenas for former National Security Adviser John Bolton, among other top current and former administration officials, that the trial will be a “sham” – an exercise in “cover-up.” You can’t have a real trial, was their refrain, unless witnesses are called.
It is nonsense. There have been plenty of witnesses. Schiff’s problem is that the additional witnesses he wanted to call would not change what has already been proved in any meaningful way.
Obviously, what’s happening in the Senate is not a trial in any familiar sense. We are used to judicial trials. Impeachment presents something completely different, a Senate trial. The Senate is a political body, not a law court.”
“In the Senate, there are no trial procedures like those that govern judicial trials. The federal rules of evidence do not apply. Neither do the rules of criminal or civil procedure. You could not have a judicial trial without these rules.”
———-
“The Democrats’ problem is not that they’ve been stopped from proving their case. They did prove their case … but their case is, at best, a petty crime, while impeachment is akin to capital punishment”
———–
“Just as the role of the judge and the governing rules in a Senate impeachment trial are night-and-day different from what takes places in a judicial trial, so too is the manner of presenting witness testimony.
In point of fact, there have been over a dozen witnesses at the impeachment trial. They have not physically come into the Senate and testified. Rather, they testified in the House investigation. Their testimony is all in the record of the Senate trial, and both the House managers and the president’s counsel relied on it in making their arguments.
That is actually not much of a departure from judicial trials. Routinely, in an effort to complete a trial expeditiously, opposing parties enter witness stipulations. These are agreements that, “if X were to be called as a witness, X would testify as follows” – with the two sides then summarizing what they mutually agree with witness would say.
The lawyers do not have to agree on why the testimony is relevant or whether it is true; just that their summary accurately reflects what the witness’ testimony would be if he or she came to court.
In effect, that is what has happened in the impeachment trial. Both sides are assuming that the many witnesses who testified before the House would give exactly the same testimony in the Senate that they gave in the House.”
—————-
They had their chance. And they messed it up in the rush to get the Bad Orange Man.
“Yes, Trump’s Acquittal Is Real, And It’s Spectacular
The most amazing thing about Democrats and their allies in the media is that they never actually lose. Any time it seems like they lose, it’s actually the result of cheating and chicanery.
Hillary Clinton didn’t lose 2016, the Russians interfered and the Electoral College is racist. Stacy Abrams didn’t lose in Georgia, the election was stolen. And sure enough, the calls have already come out to say that House Democrats aren’t really going to lose the impeachment trial, because without additional witnesses the trial isn’t legitimate and the acquittal isn’t real.”
Not this time. Mitch McConnell, President Trump’s legal team, and the GOP made fools of the Democrats and drank their milkshake. But this will not stop the aggrieved cackling heads from claiming this is all somehow fake. Take a gander at the sad-sack gaslighting below.”
Perhaps the main question when this all ends will be: was this a trial? It will be something, no doubt an important happening. But was it, in the end, a trial? And if it wasn't a trial, by common standards of what a trial should be, will it be considered an acquittal?
"It's not a real trial and it's not a real exoneration," @KirstenPowers says.
"And it's a cover-up," @CarlBernstein adds. "That's what the Senate has now done. They have covered up what the President of the United States has done." pic.twitter.com/9m1Wip6ERc
In behaving as they have, Republicans are managing not only to deprive the president of a legitimate acquittal in the eyes of Americans (who overwhelmingly want a real trial), but also to convince voters that Republicans should not be entrusted with power. https://t.co/dpuzJ9rIA5
— Jennifer "A man is not a plan" Rubin 🇺🇦🇮🇱 (@JRubinBlogger) January 24, 2020
————-
“This is the behavior of toddlers told they won’t be stopping for ice cream. “It’s not fair.” Let’s break down this tremendously stupid argument. It was perfectly fair for Democrats to set all the rules in the House impeachment process. They held secret testimony, and then they held hearings with no GOP witnesses. Then they held hearings where maybe the White House could have witnesses, at Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler’s discretion, but those witnesses couldn’t have legal counsel.
Then instead of subpoenaing the witnesses they wanted like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, the Democrats said, “Oh my goodness, there’s no time for that, this is an emergency, we have to impeach Trump RIGHT NOW!” Even without those witnesses. At that point, they sat on the articles of impeachment for weeks hoping for some miracle to save their hopeless case. And by the way, if the acquittal isn’t legitimate because we didn’t hear from Bolton, how on earth is the impeachment itself legitimate?
The speed with which coordinated Democratic talking points infect the news media represents some of the most efficient propaganda the nation has ever seen. Efficient, but not effective. Only those already in the pews of the Church of Orange Man Bad are buying this latest nonsense argument. The U.S. Senate decides what an impeachment trial looks like, and whatever they decide is by definition legitimate.”
Karen, the reason these “intelligent” people are confused is because they take it seriously. It doesn’t’;t –Nay_ It isn’t supposed to make sense.
It’s supposed to get rid of Trump.
However.
I’m anxious to see how they handle re-election.
It won’t stop. I’m wondering how it will change.
Wandering Views 
I wonder what bombshell will come out on Tuesday? The timing of the State of the Union speech and before the final vote on Wednesday makes it a good day for something secret to come out, I would imagine. What a sad state of affairs. However, if you read history such things have happened since the founding of the country. Such battles have happened since the fall in the garden. So glad we know the end is a good one when we know the Lord!
LikeLiked by 3 people
AJ – Thank you for that explanation last night. That makes sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Time to stick it to the socialist again. 🙂
https://pjmedia.com/election/is-schumer-trying-to-take-sanders-out-by-agreeing-to-hold-acquittal-vote-after-the-iowa-caucus/
“Is Schumer Trying to Take Sanders Out by Agreeing to Hold Acquittal Vote AFTER the Iowa Caucuses?”
“The Senate just approved a resolution to delay voting on acquitting President Trump until Wednesday—AFTER the Iowa caucuses, which could doom, or at least seriously hamper, efforts by Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate—Klobuchar, Warren, Sanders, and Bennet—who will now be stuck listening to floor speeches on Monday rather than making last-minute pitches to voters in the critical state.”
—————
I think you will see Bloomberg continue to rise. They want that billion for their own uses, so welcome to the party.
Little Mike didn’t qualify. So they changed the rules for him and his money.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/democratic-party-set-to-include-michael-bloomberg-in-debates-with-change-to-qualifying-requirements-2020-01-31?mod=home-page
“Democratic Party set to include Michael Bloomberg in debates with change to qualifying requirements”
“The Democratic Party’s governing body said Friday that its presidential contenders won’t have to attract a set number of donors in order to qualify for the Feb. 19 debate in Nevada, in a move that helps billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who is self-funding his campaign.
“To qualify for the Nevada debate stage, candidates may qualify either by (1) meeting a delegate threshold, or (2) meeting a polling threshold,” the Democratic National Committee said in a statement.
For previous primary debates, White House hopefuls had to get both a particular number of donors and reach a set level of support in national or early-state polls. Those requirements have kept Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, from taking part in debates, since he is self-funding his presidential campaign and not accepting donations.
Under the new requirements, politicians can qualify by getting one pledged delegate from the upcoming voting in the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary, or they can make the grade by scoring 10% support in four polls (either national or single state) or 12% support in two single-state polls.”
————-
Ladies and gentlemen, the eventual Democrat nominee…..
LikeLike
Because Warren is dropping like a stone, and Biden keeps telling people not to vote for him. 🙂
Plus, he has other issues, or soon will, to keep him busy.
I lay 10 to 1 odds right now that before this is all said and done, Biden will develop an acute case of Reagan’s I Don’t Recall……. 🙂
And given many of his recent gaffs, who won’t believe that he really doesn’t?
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/dershowitz-candidate-biden-requires-more-scrutiny-just-has-been-former-vice
“Dershowitz: Candidate Biden Requires More Scrutiny than ‘Just a Has-Been Former Vice President’”
“A presidential candidate, like Joe Biden, requires more scrutiny – not less – Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz explained Thursday in remarks defending President Donald Trump’s desire to get to the bottom of Biden’s use of a billion taxpayer dollars to pressure Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating a corrupt company employing Biden’s inexperienced son, Hunter.
Appearing on Fox News Channel, Dershowitz was asked why he thought any company would pay millions to a person, such as Biden’s son, who has no experience. Dershowitz’s answer: “To buy access”:
“To buy access, of course. Nobody would doubt that – and that’s why it’s worth investigating, and that’s why, if there were to be witnesses, he would have to be called because the president was entitled to say, ‘On the basis of this information, don’t you think this should be an investigation?’”
Dershowitz said that, when someone announces for president, that not only invites, but also requires, greater scrutiny – even if that person is Joe Biden:”
LikeLike
I’m sure it’s all nice and legit…..
Not.
“Rep. Ilhan Omar is still paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to the consulting firm run by man she allegedly had an affair with”
https://www.theblaze.com/news/ilhan-omar-is-still-paying-hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars-to-the-consulting-firm-run-by-man-she-allegedly-had-an-affair-with
“Last year, a woman accused her husband of having an affair with Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) in a divorce filing. Later, it was reported that Omar had been paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to the consulting firm run by that man, Tim Mynett.
During the fourth quarter of 2019, Omar’s campaign paid the E Street Group $215,000 for consulting, direct mail, research services, travel expenses, advertisements, and graphic design.
The committee brought in $403,000 in donations during that time, spending more than half of it on services from E Street Group. During the first three quarters of 2019, Omar’s committee paid E Street Group $310,000, meaning the amount increased dramatically in Q4.
Complaints to the Federal Election Commission about the arrangement have not been resolved, according to the New York Post.”
LikeLike
Word.
https://twitter.com/TVNewsHQ/status/1223417856433512451
LikeLike
Just admit the obvious Mitt, like Bloomberg did, and make the party switch official. It’s where your loyalties lie anyway. Even with no evidence, you chose the route you thought would harm the president. You’re disloyal without reason or cause.
Plus, you’ve worn out your welcome here.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/31/cpac-says-mitt-romney-not-welcome-annual-confab-af/
“CPAC says Mitt Romney not welcome at annual confab after his impeachment trial vote”
LikeLike
AJ – I decided to take a little time to look into it myself, and found that since the trial portion of the impeachment takes place in the Senate, witnesses are indeed supposed to be called. Here are two links that mention this.
Click to access 3_1986SenatesImpeachmentRules.pdf
http://congressionalresearch.com/98-806/document.php
LikeLike
Kizzie,
Keep in mind what you are reading are the rules agreed upon for previous impeachment proceedings. Those are not the rules agreed to this time.
Witnesses are not required.
“In impeachment trials, the full Senate may receive evidence and take testimony, or
may order the Presiding Officer to appoint a committee of Senators to serve this purpose.
If the latter option is employed, the committee will present a certified transcript of the
proceedings to the full Senate. The Senate will determine questions of competency,
relevancy, and materiality. The Senate may also take further testimony in open Senate,
or may order that the entire trial be before the full Senate.31”
Note the May also take…. Doesn’t say you have to, but you may. Or you may just go by the evidence the House submits.
I’d also note that again, they could have filed subpoenas and gone thru the process. The House chose not to it. The Senate is not obligated to supplement the House’s shoddy case. Why would they?
————–
“The managers for the House present the first argument.32 During the course of the trial
evidence is presented, and witnesses may be examined and cross-examined.
The Senate has not adopted standard rules of evidence to be used during an
impeachment trial. The Presiding Officer possesses authority to rule on all evidentiary
questions. However, the Presiding Officer may choose to put any such issue to a vote
before the Senate. Furthermore, any Senator may request that a formal vote be taken on
a particular question.” 33 Final arguments in the trial will be presented by each side, with
the managers for the House of Representatives opening and closing.34
C. Judgment of the Senate.
When the presentation of evidence and argument by the managers and counsel for
the respondent has concluded, the Senate as a whole meets in closed session to deliberate.
Voting on whether to convict on the articles of impeachment commences upon return to
open session, with yeas and nays being tallied as to each article separately.35 A conviction
on an article of impeachment requires a two-thirds vote of those Senators present.”
Again, May be examined and cross examined, not must be.
They chose the second option, to put the question of additional witnesses to a full vote, held yesterday, they lost, case closed. No witnesses. We heard the Dems case, it’s now time to vote and end this nonsense. Again, Democrat leadership owns this shoddy, incomplete, and unjustified farce. They never issued the subpoenas required to get Bolton and Mulvaneys testimony when they had the opportunity to fight that out in the courts. They ignored the process, the right and legal way to do this, because it would have drug it out beyond Nov. and then they couldn’t use their “conviction” against Trump.
————-
These are just a couple of quick ones from this link you provided….
http://congressionalresearch.com/98-806/document.php
There was nothing shady, unusual, or unprecedented about this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now as to the second link…..
Click to access 3_1986SenatesImpeachmentRules.pdf
Witnesses aren’t even mentioned until the VI article. And again, nowhere does it say witnesses are required. and there was no “essential” witnesses “conducive to the ends of justice” among them. If there were, that would have been handled in the House, where appropriate.
—————-
Note article XI. Again take testimony, if they see fit to do so. They didn’t, because there wasn’t a need and their evidence didn’t prove their case.
Nothing in either link says they must be called or even that they are “supposed” to be. Sorry, it’s just not there.
That’s this whole thing in a nutshell. There’s never been any there, there.
LikeLike
And just a reminder, this is the same case Democrats made for not calling witnesses in Clinton’s trial. They had no problem skipping them then.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/30/joe-biden-argued-against-impeachment-witnesses-in-1999-the-senate-need-not-hold-a-full-blown-trial/
“Joe Biden Argued Against Impeachment Witnesses In 1999: ‘The Senate Need Not Hold A Full Blown Trial’
In a secret 1999 memo to Democrat senators, Biden argued that the Senate had no obligation to call witnesses or hear live testimony before rendering an impeachment verdict.
“The Senate need not hold a ‘full blown’ trial” with witnesses and testimony, then-Sen. Biden wrote. “[T]he Senate may dismiss articles of impeachment without holding a full trial or taking any evidence.”
“Put another way, the Constitution does not impose on the Senate the duty to hold a trial,” he continued. “In fact the Senate need not hold a trial even though the House wishes to present evidence and hold a full trial[.]””
—————-
More….
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2020/0128/You-call-this-a-trial-When-it-comes-to-impeachment-not-so-much
“Senators sit as jurors and judges. Hardly sequestered, they run to the cameras during breaks to hold dueling press conferences. And they set their own rules, which they can also change.
“An impeachment trial was never meant to be a real trial,” says Ray Smock, former historian for the U.S. House of Representatives. It is a constitutional process taking place in a political environment, a “power play” between the executive and legislative branches, he says.
“Once power is involved,” he adds, “you can’t escape political machinations.”
Nowhere is this judicial and political mixture more consequential than on the issue of witnesses.
Democrats desperately want to call them, as well as subpoena documents, in order to bolster their allegation that the president shook down a foreign leader – withholding military aid and a White House meeting, for his own political benefit. They pound the point that a trial has witnesses, and to be fair, this trial must also have them.
But the Constitution is silent on this question – and pretty skimpy on instructions for impeachment generally.
“Because this is not a trial, there is no guarantee of witnesses,” says Mr. Smock.
Senators have agreed to vote on whether to have witnesses, probably on Friday. They wanted to wait for both sides to finish their presentations, which now have concluded, and for senators to ask questions of the two teams on Wednesday and Thursday. In a chamber controlled by 53 Republicans, Democrats need four Republicans to split from the pack if they want witnesses.”
—————
The Dems made their pitch for witnesses. It failed. Case closed.
LikeLike
Too bad there isn’t a more straight-forward procedure (“this is the way you do it each and every time”). A lot of people, even quite intelligent ones, are confused by, or ill-informed about it all.
LikeLike
Well make no mistake there is a conscious effort underway to ensure the confusion continues. They have to keep their base outraged and engaged, and that’s easier to accomplish with vague and unclear, or open to interpretation type rules. 🙂
LikeLike
A little honesty from Bill, for a change…..
LikeLike
Like I said Kizzie,
A conscious effort is underway to deceive and confuse the facts of the matter.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Kizzie,
From a noted former US Attorney….
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-mccarthy-in-trump-impeachment-trial-senate-right-to-block-new-witness-testimony
“Andrew McCarthy: In Trump impeachment trial, Senate right to block new witness testimony”
“The Senate was right to vote Friday against hearing new witness testimony at President Trump’s impeachment trial. The Democrats’ demand for new witnesses at the trial was a red herring – a talking point that had some surface appeal but, upon scrutiny, was nonsense.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and the other impeachment managers claim that there have been no witnesses in the trial. They said before the Senate voted 51-49 Friday to block more witnesses that if Republicans did note vote to approve subpoenas for former National Security Adviser John Bolton, among other top current and former administration officials, that the trial will be a “sham” – an exercise in “cover-up.” You can’t have a real trial, was their refrain, unless witnesses are called.
It is nonsense. There have been plenty of witnesses. Schiff’s problem is that the additional witnesses he wanted to call would not change what has already been proved in any meaningful way.
Obviously, what’s happening in the Senate is not a trial in any familiar sense. We are used to judicial trials. Impeachment presents something completely different, a Senate trial. The Senate is a political body, not a law court.”
“In the Senate, there are no trial procedures like those that govern judicial trials. The federal rules of evidence do not apply. Neither do the rules of criminal or civil procedure. You could not have a judicial trial without these rules.”
———-
“The Democrats’ problem is not that they’ve been stopped from proving their case. They did prove their case … but their case is, at best, a petty crime, while impeachment is akin to capital punishment”
———–
“Just as the role of the judge and the governing rules in a Senate impeachment trial are night-and-day different from what takes places in a judicial trial, so too is the manner of presenting witness testimony.
In point of fact, there have been over a dozen witnesses at the impeachment trial. They have not physically come into the Senate and testified. Rather, they testified in the House investigation. Their testimony is all in the record of the Senate trial, and both the House managers and the president’s counsel relied on it in making their arguments.
That is actually not much of a departure from judicial trials. Routinely, in an effort to complete a trial expeditiously, opposing parties enter witness stipulations. These are agreements that, “if X were to be called as a witness, X would testify as follows” – with the two sides then summarizing what they mutually agree with witness would say.
The lawyers do not have to agree on why the testimony is relevant or whether it is true; just that their summary accurately reflects what the witness’ testimony would be if he or she came to court.
In effect, that is what has happened in the impeachment trial. Both sides are assuming that the many witnesses who testified before the House would give exactly the same testimony in the Senate that they gave in the House.”
—————-
They had their chance. And they messed it up in the rush to get the Bad Orange Man.
But they missed badly. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
A conscious effort…..
To gaslight the public…..
https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/31/yes-trumps-acquittal-is-real-and-its-spectacular/
“Yes, Trump’s Acquittal Is Real, And It’s Spectacular
The most amazing thing about Democrats and their allies in the media is that they never actually lose. Any time it seems like they lose, it’s actually the result of cheating and chicanery.
Hillary Clinton didn’t lose 2016, the Russians interfered and the Electoral College is racist. Stacy Abrams didn’t lose in Georgia, the election was stolen. And sure enough, the calls have already come out to say that House Democrats aren’t really going to lose the impeachment trial, because without additional witnesses the trial isn’t legitimate and the acquittal isn’t real.”
Not this time. Mitch McConnell, President Trump’s legal team, and the GOP made fools of the Democrats and drank their milkshake. But this will not stop the aggrieved cackling heads from claiming this is all somehow fake. Take a gander at the sad-sack gaslighting below.”
————-
————-
————-
“This is the behavior of toddlers told they won’t be stopping for ice cream. “It’s not fair.” Let’s break down this tremendously stupid argument. It was perfectly fair for Democrats to set all the rules in the House impeachment process. They held secret testimony, and then they held hearings with no GOP witnesses. Then they held hearings where maybe the White House could have witnesses, at Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler’s discretion, but those witnesses couldn’t have legal counsel.
Then instead of subpoenaing the witnesses they wanted like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, the Democrats said, “Oh my goodness, there’s no time for that, this is an emergency, we have to impeach Trump RIGHT NOW!” Even without those witnesses. At that point, they sat on the articles of impeachment for weeks hoping for some miracle to save their hopeless case. And by the way, if the acquittal isn’t legitimate because we didn’t hear from Bolton, how on earth is the impeachment itself legitimate?
The speed with which coordinated Democratic talking points infect the news media represents some of the most efficient propaganda the nation has ever seen. Efficient, but not effective. Only those already in the pews of the Church of Orange Man Bad are buying this latest nonsense argument. The U.S. Senate decides what an impeachment trial looks like, and whatever they decide is by definition legitimate.”
————-
Don’t fall for their propaganda.
LikeLike
Karen, the reason these “intelligent” people are confused is because they take it seriously. It doesn’t’;t –Nay_ It isn’t supposed to make sense.
It’s supposed to get rid of Trump.
However.
I’m anxious to see how they handle re-election.
It won’t stop. I’m wondering how it will change.
LikeLiked by 1 person