The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

[Barrister]

Schiff and Pelosi need to adjourn the impeachment hearings until the additional key witnesses can appear - i.e. Mulvaney, Vaught and Duffey from OMB, Rudy, and until they receive the full documentation over the aid hold.

Then pursue the enforcement of the subpoenas while at the same time pushing the talking points in media that the President is abusing executive privilege claims to conceal evidence and that if he is really as innocent as he claims, he should the first one showing the documents that prove it and demanding these witnesses to come in to clear his name

Any other course of action IMO would be defeatist and a strategic blunder.

Pelosi just seems to want this over before the primaries happen - I think she views the impeachment as a sop to the base that is inevitably doomed in the Senate.

Pelosi isn't necessarily wrong though.  I always felt you'd need to see the public move pretty decisively against Trump in order for the Senate to convict, and that just hasn't happened even after 2 weeks of impeachment hearings.

Trump has promised to fight every document request and every subpoena.  In order to fight for those witnesses how long would it take to get a definitive ruling?  It's hard to see them getting such a ruling before the next election.

[frunk]

Pelosi isn't necessarily wrong though.  I always felt you'd need to see the public move pretty decisively against Trump in order for the Senate to convict, and that just hasn't happened even after 2 weeks of impeachment hearings.

Trump has promised to fight every document request and every subpoena.  In order to fight for those witnesses how long would it take to get a definitive ruling?  It's hard to see them getting such a ruling before the next election.

I don't see why that matters.  If there isn't a fight for documentation and the impeachment just gives up then the imperial presidency is in full force.  There's really nothing that can be done if the presidency is allowed to ignore the Legislature whenever it wants.  Even beyond whether the impeachment/removal is successful it's a terrible precedent.  I'd much rather it be shown that the executive must follow subpoenas and requests from the house/senate even if the impeachment crashes and burns.

[Razgovory]

I don't see how more evidence would make a difference.  We already have a confession, actually we have two confessions.  One by Mulvaney and one by Sondland.  If that doesn't move the needle, what would?

[The Minsky Moment]

The point is prevent the Senators voting against from hiding under some mealy-mouthed excuses like "hearsay" or not sufficient evidence to convict.  Force them to admit they are giving the President a pass on conduct that is objectively inexcusable.  The other point is to expose the wrongdoing of officials who aided and abetted Trump.

If you don't expect to Senate to convict there really isn't any point in rushing the matter.

The Trumpists will bitch about it dragging on but the easy comeback is that Trump could put it stop to it by anytime by clearing his officials to testify as opposed to abusing legal process to conceal evidence.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't see how more evidence would make a difference.  We already have a confession, actually we have two confessions.  One by Mulvaney and one by Sondland.  If that doesn't move the needle, what would?

Sondland testified the meeting was linked to the Biden attack but couldn't definitively verify the tie to the military aid hold.
Mulvaney admitted the linkage to the aid hold but then tried to take it back.  Lying maggot needs to be put under oath and penalty of perjury.

[dps]

I always felt you'd need to see the public move pretty decisively against Trump in order for the Senate to convict, and that just hasn't happened even after 2 weeks of impeachment hearings.

According to MSN, public opinion has actually moved against impeachment since the hearings began.  And that change has mainly been among independents.

Trump has promised to fight every document request and every subpoena.  In order to fight for those witnesses how long would it take to get a definitive ruling?  It's hard to see them getting such a ruling before the next election.

It will be a long process, even if it drags out past the election.  As frunk suggests, it's important to get a definitive ruling the President isn't entitled to the level of privilege that Trump is claiming, not just as a restraint on Trump, but as a restraint on future Presidents.

[jimmy olsen]

They're all complicit

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/22/politics/nunes-vienna-trip-ukrainian-prosecutor-biden/index.html

(CNN)A lawyer for an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani tells CNN that his client is willing to tell Congress about meetings the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee had in Vienna last year with a former Ukrainian prosecutor to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden.

The attorney, Joseph A. Bondy, represents Lev Parnas, the recently indicted Soviet-born American who worked with Giuliani to push claims of Democratic corruption in Ukraine. Bondy said that Parnas was told directly by the former Ukrainian official that he met last year in Vienna with Rep. Devin Nunes.

"Mr. Parnas learned from former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin that Nunes had met with Shokin in Vienna last December," said Bondy.
Shokin was ousted from his position in 2016 after pressure from Western leaders, including then-vice president Biden, over concerns that Shokin was not pursuing corruption cases.

Nunes is one of President Donald Trump's key allies in Congress and has emerged as a staunch defender of the President during the impeachment inquiry, which he has frequently labeled as a "circus." Nunes declined repeated requests for comment.

[The Brain]

  As frunk suggests, it's important to get a definitive ruling the President isn't entitled to the level of privilege that Trump is claiming, not just as a restraint on Trump, but as a restraint on future Presidents.

Whatever happens with the impeachment, the lesson from all this is that the POTUS can run absolutely wild and take huge dumps on everything for years before there's any reaction. The "POTUS is bound by stuff" train has left the station a long time ago.

[Syt]

"Yeah, see Benghazi, Fast & Furious etc." - GOP, probably.

[grumbler]

I'm with JR on this.  The Democrats need to get the Trump administration dangling on legal technicalities over whether the House can get testimony on, for instance, who ordered the aid cutoff, when, and why, and who ordered it restored, and why.  People in OMB know this, but Trump won't let them testify, even as it used the lack of such testimony to impugn the impeachment process.  Issue the subpoenas, take it to court, and let Trump try to deny he is a pugfucker.

[Sheilbh]

Pelosi isn't necessarily wrong though.  I always felt you'd need to see the public move pretty decisively against Trump in order for the Senate to convict, and that just hasn't happened even after 2 weeks of impeachment hearings.

Trump has promised to fight every document request and every subpoena.  In order to fight for those witnesses how long would it take to get a definitive ruling?  It's hard to see them getting such a ruling before the next election.

I agree with MM. But I think expecting a substantial swing in public opinion following two weeks of hearings is ambitious.

There was some interesting polling by FiveThirtyEight and Ipsos, because the views on impeachment have basically been steady since the story came out, with minor fluctuations. But there is a small majority in the polls that he committed an impeachable offence, even if people don't support impeachment.

What's interesting is the poll on the individual elements. People generally believe that he asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. Democrats think it's inappropriate and impeachable, Republicans think it's neither.

But fewer people believe the other two elements that Trump withheld aid over this and then tried to cover it up. Democrats believe both, think both are in appropriate and impeachable. Republicans don't believe either, think both are inappropriate but neither is impeachable. I think that those are the elements that need to be more demonstrated and that involves the decision making in Washington more than the Ambassadors etc.

I think they can say they've done as much of the Ukraine-focused bit of their investigation and now need to turn to what was being done in Washington.

[Razgovory]

One of those Russian gangsters that have been working with Guiliani.  Is apparently willing to testify that David Nunes traveled to Vienna as part of this Anti-Biden scheme.

[dps]

Pelosi isn't necessarily wrong though.  I always felt you'd need to see the public move pretty decisively against Trump in order for the Senate to convict, and that just hasn't happened even after 2 weeks of impeachment hearings.

Trump has promised to fight every document request and every subpoena.  In order to fight for those witnesses how long would it take to get a definitive ruling?  It's hard to see them getting such a ruling before the next election.

I agree with MM. But I think expecting a substantial swing in public opinion following two weeks of hearings is ambitious.

There was some interesting polling by FiveThirtyEight and Ipsos, because the views on impeachment have basically been steady since the story came out, with minor fluctuations. But there is a small majority in the polls that he committed an impeachable offence, even if people don't support impeachment.

What's interesting is the poll on the individual elements. People generally believe that he asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. Democrats think it's inappropriate and impeachable, Republicans think it's neither.

But fewer people believe the other two elements that Trump withheld aid over this and then tried to cover it up. Democrats believe both, think both are in appropriate and impeachable. Republicans don't believe either, think both are inappropriate but neither is impeachable. I think that those are the elements that need to be more demonstrated and that involves the decision making in Washington more than the Ambassadors etc.

I think they can say they've done as much of the Ukraine-focused bit of their investigation and now need to turn to what was being done in Washington.

I think this is a pretty good take on this.

And for the record:

Asking the Ukraine to investigate the Bidens:  questionably inappropriate, but not impeachable.  And what makes asking questionable isn't asking them to investigate per se, but the motivation for asking.

Withholding aid:  inappropriate, but not impeachable, but I could be convinced otherwise.

Covering up what happened:  flat out impeachable;  it's straight-up obstruction of justice.  And yes I believe Trump tried (well, is still trying, just without much success) to cover it up.  Which actually makes the other 2 elements seem worse, because if you don't think you did anything wrong, why try to cover it up?

[Razgovory]

Blackmailing a foreign country to use it's criminal justice system to investigate, charge, and imprison family member of your political opponents seems fairly impeachable to me.

[grumbler]

Withholding aid granted by law for personal gain is a violation of the oath of office.  That's impeachable.  In fact, that's pretty much the definition of "impeachable."