I am beginning to suspect that the Senate proceedings may not go as Mitch McConnell desires. Here is the problem: Virtually all the public testimony thus far has been from witnesses hostile to Trump, because those who could be expected to be favorable have refused to testify. The Republican defense of Trump has been that no one who has testified had direct knowledge of Trump's statements and intentions [save for that weird phone call from Sondland to Trump.] The Republicans are correct about this.
Well, Schumer will seek to call Mulvaney and Bolton to testify. It requires four Republicans voting with the Democrats to get Chief Justice Roberts to issue the subpoena. Collins, McSally, Gardner, even Tillis will have a hard time running in 2020 after having voted to refuse to hear from Trump's defenders! Throw in Romney and Murkowski, and there is a good chance one or more of those on Schumer's list will be called. Does Mulvaney really want to defy a subpoena from the Chief Justice?
This affair could be more fun than anticipated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
And what if they refuse to testify and claim some privilege that will take months for the courts to declare outlandish? Haven't we been down this road already and are now awaiting the SC decision that won't happen for some time beyond what the Grim Reaper declares. i hope I'm missing something.
Well Jerry, suppose in that case the Chief Justice asks his colleagues to take the case up immediately, bypassing the lower courts, and render a swift verdict? He may be a Republican, but is he willing to have the authority of his court defied? I wonder.
Is there an appeal from Roberts' rulings in the trial? The Constitution seems silent on the point.
Yes, David, 51 senators.
That could be interesting!
Chuck Schumer has made his opening offer to Mitch McConnell, is driving a hard bargain, but McConnell and the GOP could in theory ignore Schumer’s request and bipartisan negotiations altogether.
'Does Mulvaney really want to defy a subpoena from the Chief Justice?'
When it comes to Bolton, Mulvaney, Duffy and Blair, I think that it's unclear whether they would comply if they were asked to testify before the Senate.
First, caveats. Not an expert on impeachment. Most of my knowledge of these proceedings derives from listening intermittently to the House hearings.
The Republicans claim that almost no one with direct knowledge of T's statements and intentions has testified, but this is largely beside the point b.c the case seems to revolve largely around dueling interpretations of the key sentence ("I want you to do us a favor") in the July 25 phone call. T. told Sondland he wanted no quid pro quo, but maybe (or more than maybe) T. was dissembling, or to put it more bluntly, lying. What T. said to Bolton, Mulvany, Sondland et al is in this sense pretty irrelevant, unless there is an unambiguous smoking-gun statement (e.g., T saying to someone "That s.o.b. Zelensky will announce an investigation of the Bidens, otherwise I'm giving him nothing, no more aid, no White Hse meeting" -- and there likely isn't such an unambiguous statement. The July 25 call is quite probably as unambiguous as T. got).
Finally, it might not be wise for Schumer to call Bolton, Mulvaney or anyone else b.c he can't be sure what they'll say. You might think Bolton will say X (the "drug deal" remark and all that), but he cd surprise people by saying, in effect, nothing. Bolton is of course not stupid and if he wants to equivocate right up to the very boundary of committing perjury under oath, he'll probably find a way to do it.
The Republicans' best line of defense -- not that it's good, but it's the best available -- is to say that T's behavior was improper but doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Not really a good argument, but it's the only honest one they have. Of course, the Repubs are too cowed by T to take this line (really none of them did in the House hearings), and they will argue (dishonestly) that T did nothing improper at all, and anyway it doesn't matter b.c the aid was eventually released, which is also a fairly absurd argument.
The likelihood of more than one or two (at most) Repub Senators voting to remove T from office is very slim. We know how this play is going to end, so maybe the Dems shd just move through it as quickly as possible and then turn their attention to the presidential campaign.
Impeachment veteran John Dean proposed the following:
"Hope @SpeakerPelosi will not play into Mitch’s hands, and allow the GOP Senate to exonerate Trump for his crimes. This is how to stop it. Impeach, don’t send to the Senate and continue to investigate! Make it a campaign issue. Senate is rigged. Stop the crowning of King Donald!"
Perhaps not a bad idea.
LFC,
I think you are understating the strength of the Dems case. The Judiciary Committee report is thorough though you'll kill an ink cartridge printing it out. Trump had to make this happen and took all the necessary steps to implement it, starting with foreign contributions to Trump PACs in order to start the ball rolling with a written request from an indebted House member requesting Trump to remove Amb. Janokovich.
Apart from senate trial procedures and their impact, the politics of reelection start to percolate. Graham, who is up for reelection has decided that his only option is to pander to the fascist right in hope of not being subject to a primary challenge. There seems to be a palpable fear of Trump's clout among many, which along with ideological commitment and delusional thinking by Republicans seem to guarantee a majority against conviction. At the other extreme there are four or five Senators who are having to contend with thin margins of victory and the Blue Wave (Collins, McSalley and Murkowski, et.al.) and the few like Romney who can buck Trump while having no fear of consequence. McConnell can let several members buck him and Trump could still be exonerated.
@Christopher Mulvaney,
Yes I probably am understating the strength of the Dems' case. (I'm going to let others read the Judiciary Cte report though. I'll take their/your word for it on the summary.)
Michael Hobart, thank you for the John Dean input. A great strategy, but I'm afraid we are stuck with
Pelosi who loves tough appearing photo ops but fails to play hardball. Yes, Dean's approach is hardball. Here's another Republican who offers a hardball approach, Rick Wilson: http://bit.ly/2PxbVX7
What gives the lie to the Dem leadership is how they huff and puff about how Trump is the greatest threat yet to the republic, but then help pass the updated version of the patriot act//surveillance state and fail to fight over his unqualified judges that get passed with ease. Hopefully, we the electorate will dump Biden and turn the tables. But Dems playing hardball? Not while Pelosi is in charge.
It is my understanding that a prime legal dictate is never call a witness that you do not know what they are going to say. None of Schumer’s suggested witnesses have been deposed.
Post a Comment