Impeachment

[RoseMorninStar]

If I'm not mistaken, no, the president doesn't have the power to withhold money approved by Congress. Several people were removed/fired/quit for refusing to do this because it was illegal and everyone knew it. Trump specifically installed people in these vacated positions who would do what was illegal. At least, that is what I've been getting from what I've been reading.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

John Bolton has now announced that if he is subpoenaed by the Senate, he will testify. Here is his statement in full:

During the present impeachment controversy, I have tried to meet my obligations both as a citizen and as former National Security Advisor. My colleague, Dr. Charles Kupperman, faced with a House committee subpoena on the one hand, and a Presidential directive not to testify on the other, sought final resolution of this Constitutional conflict from the Federal judiciary. After my counsel informed the House committee that I too would seek judicial resolution of these Constitutional issues, the committee chose not to subpoena me. Nevertheless, I publicly resolved to be guided by the outcome of Dr. Kupperman’s case.

But both the President and the House of Representatives opposed his effort on jurisdictional grounds, and each other on the merits. The House committee went so far as to withdraw its subpoena to Dr. Kupperman in a deliberate attempt to moot the case and deprive the court of jurisdiction. Judge Richard Leon, in a carefully reasoned opinion on December 30, held Dr. Kupperman’s case to be moot, and therefore did not reach the separation-of-powers issues.

The House has concluded its Constitutional responsibility by adopting Articles of Impeachment related to the Ukraine matter. It now falls to the Senate to fulfill its Constitutional obligation to try impeachments, and it does not appear possible that a final judicial resolution of the still-unanswered Constitutional questions can be obtained before the Senate acts.

Accordingly, since my testimony is once again at issue, I have had to resolve the serious competing issues as best I could, based on careful consideration and study. I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.

https://www.boltonpac.com/2020/01/state ... -r-bolton/

It will be interesting to see if this changes the calculations at all in the ongoing impasse in the Senate about whether to call any witnesses. And, if the Senate refuses to subpoena him, what is to stop the House from scheduling a new hearing and issuing their own testimony? He seems to anticipate that possibility by saying that the House has concluded its Constitutional responsibility, but I don't think there is anything that would stop them from scheduling a new hearing. Could he really say that now that he has "resolved the serious competing issues as best [he] could" that he would still refuse to testify in response to a subpoena in the House?

[elengil]

The Senate... but not the House, eh? If the House issued a new subpoena, would he still resist it?

[yovargas]

Gawd damnit. I really hate that the House didn't stick with and follow through with the subpoenas. If there was ever any chance of this whole impeachment proceeding meaning anything at all - and there was never much of a chance of that - it was from pushing the courts to make these rulings. In the long run, they would have been far more important than getting a pointless House vote in quickly, but for apparent political expediancy they bailed on the most important part of the whole process.

[RoseMorninStar]

I'm guessing Bolton has issued this statement because a.) he knows the Senate will not subpoena him, or b.) he is daring them to.

[elengil]

I'm guessing Bolton has issued this statement because a.) he knows the Senate will not subpoena him, or b.) he is daring them to.

There may be the tiniest of slim possibilities that he's attempting to bolster support for witnesses during the trial among Republican senators who may still be undecided?

Or is that giving him too much credit?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The Senate... but not the House, eh? If the House issued a new subpoena, would he still resist it?

The House never issued a subpoena to Bolton, only to Kupperman. They requested Bolton's testimony but never subpoenaed him.

Gawd damnit. I really hate that the House didn't stick with and follow through with the subpoenas. If there was ever any chance of this whole impeachment proceeding meaning anything at all - and there was never much of a chance of that - it was from pushing the courts to make these rulings. In the long run, they would have been far more important than getting a pointless House vote in quickly, but for apparent political expediancy they bailed on the most important part of the whole process.

How long do you think that would have taken? The answer is minimum of a year, and almost certainly not before the next election. So an impeachment that is all about soliciting interference with the 2020 election would not be resolved before the 2020 election. That is untenable. Moreover, how likely is it that the Trump-dominated SCOTUS would issue a truly objective decision about compelling witnesses to testify against Trump's direction, and compelling production of the documents (which are actually more important, because I now have concluded that the documentation is fully damning). In an ideal world, yes I agree that the best case scenario would be to have the courts decide. But we don't have an ideal world.

There may be the tiniest of slim possibilities that he's attempting to bolster support for witnesses during the trial among Republican senators who may still be undecided?

I think he is equally divided between wanting to stick it to his old adversaries in the Democratic Party and wanting to stick it to his new adversary, Trump.

[yovargas]

Gawd damnit. I really hate that the House didn't stick with and follow through with the subpoenas. If there was ever any chance of this whole impeachment proceeding meaning anything at all - and there was never much of a chance of that - it was from pushing the courts to make these rulings. In the long run, they would have been far more important than getting a pointless House vote in quickly, but for apparent political expediancy they bailed on the most important part of the whole process.

How long do you think that would have taken? The answer is minimum of a year, and almost certainly not before the next election. So an impeachment that is all about soliciting interference with the 2020 election would not be resolved before the 2020 election. That is untenable. Moreover, how likely is it that the Trump-dominated SCOTUS would issue a truly objective decision about compelling witnesses to testify against Trump's direction, and compelling production of the documents (which are actually more important, because I now have concluded that the documentation is fully damning). In an ideal world, yes I agree that the best case scenario would be to have the courts decide. But we don't have an ideal world.

I don't understand this thinking at all. So it takes a year. So what? So what! You say it needed to be "resolved" before the next election. Why? What is the point of "resolving" it, in our current scenario? What do you think our current scenario is accomplishing that pushing this through the courts would not? Because the current scenario is accomplishing nothing at best (in my view it is accomplishing worse than nothing). The Senate is going to give Trump the pass and he will not be affected at all, so in what way is this more or less "tenable" than waiting for the courts? You say what are the odds of the SCOTUS being objective and I would say, the odds are FAR better than the odds of the Senate being objective, so why the rush to get it in front of the Senate?

I am just baffled by the idea that waiting to try to get all the info and all the testimony that can be gotten is not important enough. As far as I'm concerned, it's the only thing that's important here. I don't know what it is that you think their current goal should be, but I can't possibly agree that whatever that goal is is more important than the opportunity to hear the full truth of the matter.

[RoseMorninStar]

Possibly it is because Trump is unlikely to be removed from office by the current Senate no matter what he does, no matter how horrific or unconstitutional. He will lie and cheat and continue to destroy our institutions, strip the state department and diplomatic ties, pack the courts with sycophants, and openly invite foreign interference in our elections. If these things should come to pass in our next election without any restraint, it's passing a point of no return.. or has that potential. So, perhaps, it is felt the best way to counteract this decline is at the ballot box. If they wait for all of the stall tactics to go through the court system, it will be too late for the next election.

[Cerin]

And, if the Senate refuses to subpoena him, what is to stop the House from scheduling a new hearing and issuing their own testimony?

This is what should be done, now, especially given that the articles have remained in the House.

As I understand it, the Constitution mandates that the House present their articles to the Senate, and the Senate judge the merits of those articles. The House articles were considered and passed without Bolton's testimony, therefore Bolton's testimony has no place in a Senate assessment of those articles. The place to get Bolton's testimony is in the House, if Democrats want Bolton's testimony to be considered as part of the articles of impeachment.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There is nothing in the Constitution (or in common sense) that says that the Senate cannot take into consideration evidence that the House did not have available to it, just as a jury in a criminal trial can consider evidence that was not available to a grand jury, so long as it is relevant to the specific charges.

[Cerin]

There is nothing in the Constitution (or in common sense) that says that the Senate cannot take into consideration evidence that the House did not have available to it, just as a jury in a criminal trial can consider evidence that was not available to a grand jury, so long as it is relevant to the specific charges.

It doesn't matter what the Constitution doesn't say, but what it does say. If the Constitution directs the Senate to assess the articles sent to them, that means those articles and the evidence they and the vote to impeach are based on. That is common sense and logic to me, notwithstanding the rules of legal trials and grand juries. This is not a legal trial, but a situation unique to the Senate and House. If the Constitution directs House managers to take articles of impeachment that were voted on (without testimony from Bolton) to the Senate, present the articles and supporting evidence (which does not include testimony from Bolton) to the Senate, and the Senate to judge the merits of those articles and that evidence, then that is what should be done. If the House wants more evidence for their articles, they should do their Constitutional duty and get it. They don't even know what Bolton has to say and whether or not what he has to say is relevant to the specific charges. They need to investigate that. That should happen prior to a Senate trial and the drafting of articles, not after and certainly not during the trial itself.

[yovargas]

I think that's pretty weird logic. Why would you take "the House should gather articles for the Senate to review" to mean that the Senate shouldn't look at new evidence that shows up? Saying that it is the House's duty to gather initial evidence isn't the same as saying that the Senate shouldn't ever take it upon themselves to also look at evidence, specially if that evidence wasn't previously available to the Senate.

[River]

The Constitution
I did a control-F search on impeach and this is what I found:

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5:

The House f Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Article 2, Section 4 (entirety):

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 3:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

That is all the Constitution says about impeachment.

[elengil]

As I understand it, the Constitution mandates that the House present their articles to the Senate, and the Senate judge the merits of those articles. The House articles were considered and passed without Bolton's testimony, therefore Bolton's testimony has no place in a Senate assessment of those articles. The place to get Bolton's testimony is in the House, if Democrats want Bolton's testimony to be considered as part of the articles of impeachment.

I'm not disagreeing per se, actually, no, I am disagreeing quite strongly.

What you describe sounds like the senate sits around and talks about a document and does a yea or nay vote, which we know is not what happens. The senate acts as a jury and a full trial is held. This means there is far, far more than "judge the merits of those articles" that happens. Just like at a trial, there is a case, but there is also argument, and evidence, and witnesses, and more than just an indictment that is read. The House is even involved as the 'prosecutors', and the Chief Justice acts as Judge, so it's a trial, not a Senate hearing.

In trials, the charges being read is like the first thing that happens and then everything else happens afterward, it doesn't just end with the charges and then the jury is dismissed!

As River has kindly provided, there is blessed little in the Constitution about how an impeachment and trial happens, and nothing that restricts the Senate except by oath (which arguably has been preemptively broken by several members), and all the substance of how these things happen has been left to the respective bodies to provide rules or precedence or agreements. Almost nothing is mandated, I see nothing that is actually *prohibited*, and certainly not to the degree that says they must not consider anything except what any articles contain.

If that were the case, there would be even stronger argument, actually, that the Senate is violating their oath by working with the Executive Branch, since they should not consider any of the WH's defense strategies, arguments, and especially not the president's "party". In fact, they cannot even consider the WH's defense argument at all! Which should have been presented to the House. Only those articles. So either way you slice it, to argue that the articles are the sole and only source of absolutely anything the Senate considers is still just flat out inaccurate.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In the Clinton impeachment, the Senate had three witnesses testify for the Senate trial, providing evidence beyond that used for the House articles.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Cerin]

Voronwë, you previously provided a quote -- I believe it involved a statement from Chuck Schumer -- that said that the Clinton trial did not present new witnesses. So if you could provide the details of what evidence you're referring to above, that would be helpful.

Per River's info:

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.

To try all what? All impeachments. What is the impeachment in question here? It is the articles voted on by the House (and if they are never sent to the Senate, this will all be moot). The Senate is to hear a presentation of those articles, which were not based on any testimony from Bolton, try them, and decide if they warrant removing the President.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Cerin, I never provided a quote saying that, since it is not true. What you are probably remembering is that I pointed out that Schumer
opposed there being witnesses in the Clinton impeachment trial, unsuccessfully.

In the Clinton trial, the Senate delayed the decision as to whether to call witnesses until after both sides make their opening arguments. They then voted to take testimony from three witnesses, Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordon, and Sidney Blumenthal. The House managers then did videotaped depositions of those three witnesses and the Senate subsequently voted to just play excerpts from those depositions rather than having the witnesses testify live.

[Cerin]

I will go seek out the quote later today.

So Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal had not testified in any of the investigations that took place before the Senate trial? They had not been heard from by anyone before being questioned by the House managers? (I'm not clear on what investigations did take place that were related to the Clinton impeachment.)

I think if Senators wanted to hear from anyone who appeared in Schiff's underground hearings or in his or Nadler's televised hearings, they should follow that same procedure.

Schumer's media tactic seems to be to equate this with a legal trial, positioning it as a trial of Trump. This is not a trial of Trump. This is a trial of the articles of impeachment, to see if those accusations and the evidence underlying them merit Trump's removal from office. This is a trial of Pelosi's and Schiff's slipshod, political theater and the articles it produced.

[yovargas]

It's been very interesting to me to learn that while Cerin and many of the President's supporters have been incessantly criticizing the House for how they handled the process, there are in fact almost no rules or guidelines for what the process should be. The power for how to handle impeaching a president is left almost entirely up to the branches of Congress to do with as they wish. Given this, as a citizen, the specifics of the process they choose to follow is almost entirely irrelevant. There are only two questions that matter - 1) is the process investigating legitimate, serious claims of potential wrong doing; 2) is the process getting a full and fair investigations into the evidence behind those claims. Almost nothing else matters as long as those criteria are being met.

The idea that the Senate should limit itself to only look at some specific, narrow things the House sent to them seems, as far as I can tell, entirely without merit. I have no idea why Cerin keeps repeating it. The Senate has the power and authority and grounds to handle this process however they want. As a citizen, I want them to follow whatever process gets us all the evidence available.