Impeachment

[Faramond]

Yeah Cerin but don't you think that Bolton fish could be really tasty? I really want to hear what he has to say when he's being grilled.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Is the House more like the prosecution or the grand jury?

The House as a whole served as the de facto grand jury. The House Managers chosen by the Speaker serve as the de facto prosecutors in the Senate trial.

Cerin, I find it utterly bizarre that you reserve all of your vitriol for the Democrats and none for the Trump administration, when it is the administration's stonewalling that is unprecedented and standing in the way of all relevant facts being revealed, not the Democrat's actions. But I am done trying to address this with you.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

John Bolton (and even more his attorney) have made it clear that he has relevant information that has not yet been revealed that he wants to be able to provide. Why would it be "fishing" to have him provide that information? I am genuinely baffled by this.

[yovargas]

Cerin, I find it utterly bizarre that you reserve all of your vitriol for the Democrats and none for the Trump administration, when it is the administration's stonewalling that is unprecedented and standing in the way of all relevant facts being revealed, not the Democrat's actions.

Which is why I adamantly believe the correct thing to do, the best thing for this country, was to push these issues to court even if it really would have taken years. The implications of allowing the President to claim these vast unchecked privileges is something that will have consequences for far, far longer than the next election cycle, and literally no one can do anything except the courts. As it stands, he has done it, he will face no consequences for doing it, and future presidents will be able to reasonably claim that there is precedent in being totally obstructionist and getting away with it.

[Dave_LF]

Bolton has been rooting for war in Iran since at least the GWB days; if he's upset with Trump, Trump must have done something really, really bad. Is there no chance that his information is something that would let him off the hook?

[Faramond]

Maybe he just wants to tell the truth?

I know, I know, but maybe?

[River]

Yeah Cerin but don't you think that Bolton fish could be really tasty? I really want to hear what he has to say when he's being grilled.

for the metaphor.

I too am curious about what a grilled Bolton would sound like. Is he going to call his former subordinate Dr. Hill a liar? Because he would almost have to, if he were to rescue the President. Is he going to take the 5th or claim a bunch of privileges? Or is he going to add to Dr. Hill's testimony and fill in the blanks? I feel like if he wanted to get Trump off the proverbial hook he would have made a move to do so before the House voted to impeach.

Dave, I suspect that, if we ever find out what set Bolton off, it'll be more than the Ukraine affair. Though that's ugly enough. I saw some messages from the haul Parnas handed over to Congress. It reads like Trump's personal Ukraine squad was following Ambassador Yovanovitch around, looking to do something that could only be achieved if her security got out of the way. This was happening right around the time Trump was saying she'd "go through some things" and then the Ambassador was suddenly ordered home for security reasons. Not sure how it all adds up but it's not pointing in a healthy direction. Also, apparently, some Ukrainian Giuliani et al were dealing with for Biden dirt wanted Yovanovitch pulled in exchange for said dirt.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm pretty sure North Korea is what set Bolton off the most. And I would eat unidentifiable items of clothing if the reason Bolton wanted to testify was to vindicate Mr. Trump. Though I am not convinced that anything that he has to say would really be all that much more conclusive than the information all ready revealed (which to my eye is pretty darn damning). And I can't help but chuckle at the spectacle of liberals looking to arch-conservative John Bolton as some kind of savior. Still, of course I'm interested in what he has to say, and I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that he wants to tell the truth.

[elengil]

And that brings me to the thing that I find truly upsetting and offensive. Had Pelosi been approaching the impeachment question in good faith rather than principally as a political exercise, then the House investigation would still be ongoing and the new evidence would be taken up there, where it belongs.

The house investigations are ongoing. They've even said that new articles could still be forthcoming (I don't think it's likely, but) because of ongoing investigations

I couldn't find anything more recent than this but this indicates that even with the two articles they have, they haven't stopped investigating
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/1 ... ler-086251

And given that the biggest gripe against the Mueller investigation was how "long" it took (despite being very quick relative to similar investigations) they may have wanted to forestall a similar argument against these investigations, to give solid results before Republicans could spin it as another "nothing burger".

These two articles would have had more content if the administration had not illegally ignored subpoenas, refused to let people testify, and had not forced the issue into the courts who were taking the long road to reach any kind of conclusion.

And yet, with the Mueller investigation, they were accused of going too slow and dragging things out...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The non-partisan Government Accountability Office has released its report finding that the hold on the Ukrainian aid was unambiguously illegal.

Also, Ukraine has announced that it is launching an investigation in allegations made by Lev Parnas that suggested that Ambassador Yavonovich was the subject of illegal surveillance before she was recalled.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This is completely frivolous, but what in the world was Nancy Pelosi thinking in giving out what appear to be commemorative pens when she signed the articles of impeachment? All that did was given the Republicans a talking point. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't make any real difference, but it just seems stupid to me, and Nancy Pelosi doesn't usually do stupid. I can't figure out why she would have done that.

[yovargas]

I had the same reaction when I heard that this morning. Someone said that it's traditional to do that when signing significant bills and stuff. Don't know if that's true but even if it is, this was not a good time to follow that tradition.

[Frelga]

I think it's time Democrats stopped worrying about giving Republicans talking points. If they don't give him any, they'll just make them up.

[River]

This is completely frivolous, but what in the world was Nancy Pelosi thinking in giving out what appear to be commemorative pens when she signed the articles of impeachment? All that did was given the Republicans a talking point. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't make any real difference, but it just seems stupid to me, and Nancy Pelosi doesn't usually do stupid. I can't figure out why she would have done that.

Maybe to get under Trump's skin?

[elengil]

Maybe to get under Trump's skin?

Petty, but then, that's really holding Dems to a far higher standard than Reps. But I feel we need to hold our elected officials to higher standards, whether they rise to meet them or no. It irritates me that we are even having a discussion about such petty little displays, but here we are.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Whatever the reason, it really is pointless. Not that it matters much. Seeing the response of Republican senators to the GAO report is another reminder that facts don't actually matter. Sen. Richard Shelby, the chairman of the appropriations committee, said the “timing” of the GAO report looked suspicious.
“Timing looked a little suspect to everybody I think,” Shelby said. “I’ve never known GAO to get involved in partisan politics and stuff like that. It’s probably not good for the GAO.” Sen. Ron Johnson told CNN he had a brief discussion about the report with his staff and said it sounds like a legalistic “dispute” between GAO and the Office of Management and Budget.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Chief Justice Roberts has sworn in all 100 Senators. The Senate rules governing impeachment require the following oath:

"I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of (the person on trial), now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws; So help me God."

Note that the oath specifies "the trial of the impeachment of (the person on trial)." Hopefully that resolves any question of what the person of an impeachment trial is.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Seeing the response of Republican senators to the GAO report is another reminder that facts don't actually matter. Sen. Richard Shelby, the chairman of the appropriations committee, said the “timing” of the GAO report looked suspicious.
“Timing looked a little suspect to everybody I think,” Shelby said. “I’ve never known GAO to get involved in partisan politics and stuff like that. It’s probably not good for the GAO.” Sen. Ron Johnson told CNN he had a brief discussion about the report with his staff and said it sounds like a legalistic “dispute” between GAO and the Office of Management and Budget.

And then there are these comments from Susan Collins, the most "moderate" of GOP Senators, about the Parnas evidence:

"I wonder why the House did not put that into the record, and it's only now being revealed." After it was pointed out that the House only received the materials from Parnas this week, Collins responded, "Well, doesn't that suggest that the House did an incomplete job then?"

Now, perhaps what she is really saying is that the House should not have rushed through the impeachment until all possible evidence was available. But what it sounds like is that she doesn't understand (or doesn't want to understand) that the evidence from Parnas was impounded by the Justice Department in its criminal case against him, and was just released by the judge in that case this week. This is reminiscent of the Kavanaugh situation in which she repeatedly said that she wanted an investigation into the claims against him, and then made comments that made clear that she was unaware of relevant facts that had come out, before ultimately making the deciding vote in his favor.

[RoseMorninStar]

I had the same reaction when I heard that this morning. Someone said that it's traditional to do that when signing significant bills and stuff.

Regarding the use of a new pen with each signature on a bill/significant historical papers, this is correct. It is a tradition that dates back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The pens are usually given to those lawmakers or dignitaries who were instrumental in getting the bill/legislation/papers of historical significance passed.

We are not talking about witnesses and documents that the House did not attempt to obtain. The "damaging and corrupt precedent" is the administration's blocking of relevant testimony and documents through the unprecedented invocation of a a made up "absolute immunity" that not even Nixon pretended existed.*

*my bolding & underlining.

It was impossible for the house to do a 'proper' investigation because Trump/the White House pulled all sorts of unprecedented and corrupt stunts and claims of immunity and threats to potential witnesses. Something that could not SHOULD not be done. Parnas said that he was stunned as he watched the House proceedings & listened to Devin Nunes (et al) lie and lie.

Yeah Cerin but don't you think that Bolton fish could be really tasty? I really want to hear what he has to say when he's being grilled.

[Cerin]

John Bolton (and even more his attorney) have made it clear that he has relevant information that has not yet been revealed that he wants to be able to provide. Why would it be "fishing" to have him provide that information? I am genuinely baffled by this.

I think Bolton should provide his information. In the proper place -- in a House hearing. I think Pelosi should have cared more about doing things right than about scoring political points, and should have waited for the courts to rule on Bolton's testimony, and any others that were subpoenaed. They could even now open another impeachment inquiry and seek this information, and investigate this new evidence in the proper way. That's what I believe, Constitutionally, should be done. I do not believe it was the framer's intent for that investigative work to be undertaken in a Senate impeachment trial. The Senate trial, imo, is to reach a verdict based on the evidence contained in the articles of impeachment. I care more about preserving the Constitutional intent of impeachment than I care about Trump's actions or his fate. He is one man. I want our Constitution to endure.

It is 'fishing' because no one knows what Bolton will say (or any of the other undeposed witnesses). The Democrats are fishing for more evidence that will bolster their case.

I've done my best to explain why I care about what I care about. I'm sorry it is a frustration to others. It seems clear as a beacon to me (which is why I erred earlier in believing my understanding was the only legitimate one) that the House should present the case they found sufficient to impeach the President on, and the Senate should decide if that evidence warrants the President's removal from office.

I was happy this morning to see this concept that is so important to me finally appearing in virtual print. I hope more Senators will begin articulating this point of view, and that the media will report it.

Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., told CNN that the Senate doesn’t need to hear “new evidence.” “That’s not our job. The job is to respond to what we’ve been given and the case that was built by the House,” Perdue said. “Our job is to look at what they brought us and decide if that rises to the level of impeachment.”

yahoo

Note that the oath specifies "the trial of the impeachment of (the person on trial)." Hopefully that resolves any question of what the person of an impeachment trial is.

Did you perhaps misread that? Were you thinking it said, 'the trial of (the person on trial)." Is says it is a trial of the impeachment, not a trial of the person. This backs up my interpretation.