Impeachment coming

[sportage]

So NOW republicans say they will not and can not confirm Biden's AG nominee Merrick Garland because of the impeachment. WTF???? I thought that Joe Biden won the election??? And I thought that democrats now controlled the senate??? How is it, WHY is it that no matter what, republicans ALWAYS find a way to screw the democrats and to do that even when the democrats are in control of EVERYTHING? Democrats still get screwed by republicans no matter who controls what, and no matter who is calling the shots. When the republicans controlled everything republicans had no problem... no problem at all with jamming through every nominee, every tax bill, every Trump appointee they wanted while democrats did NOTHING, could do NOTHING to stop the republicans. No magic legislation tricks, no rabbits out of the hat. Yet now, even after a blow-out election, it appears that republicans still continue to call all the shots. Republican find plenty of magic tricks and plenty of rabbits in their magic hats. We have THIS going on, and also Joni Ernst blocking that $15 minimum wage in Biden's stimulus package. What ever happened to that "reconciliation" tactic democrats mentioned so often? How is it that Lindsey can screw up Joe Biden's AG nomination? And how is it that Joni Ernst could derail that $15 minimum wage that Biden campaigned on so determined? I tell you.... if democrats screw this up and there is no $15 minimum wage, OR... $1400 stimulus checks, democrats will be creamed come the 2022 midterms. And, maybe they deserve be....

 

[nOOky]

Sure, he’s going to be acquitted. The thing is we already nailed him - he lost, and there’s a decent chance he’s going to be indicted.

If the Democrats wanted to they could force him to testify of course and there’s nothing he could do to prevent it. (Well, I guess he could sit in prison) I doubt they are interested in wasting the time necessary to do so.

That would be drawn out for months, if not years in litigation. And if he lost he'd still just not show up, and likely there would be no recourse. He isn't testifying, ever.

 

[fskimospy]

That would be drawn out for months, if not years in litigation. And if he lost he'd still just not show up, and likely there would be no recourse. He isn't testifying, ever.

What litigation?

1) Senate issues subpoena.
2) Trump defies subpoena.
3) Senate refers Trump to DOJ.
4) DOJ arrests Trump.

I think you’re confusing his ability to ignore subpoenas when he controlled the DOJ to now, when he is a private citizen. He would be free to not show up, but that would be from a jail cell.

 

[nOOky]

What litigation?

1) Senate issues subpoena.
2) Trump defies subpoena.
3) Senate refers Trump to DOJ.
4) DOJ arrests Trump.

I think you’re confusing his ability to ignore subpoenas when he controlled the DOJ to now, when he is a private citizen. He would be free to not show up, but that would be from a jail cell.

No, I think he'd have his lawyers respond as to why he doesn't have to show up not being president anymore and all, and no way in hell would they actually come collect him and throw him in jail for disobeying a subpoena. He'd go to court and insist the summons is illegal, and then the fighting would begin. It's all moot, because they will not subpoena him anyway.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I think he'd have his lawyers respond as to why he doesn't have to show up not being president anymore and all, and no way in hell would they actually come collect him and throw him in jail for disobeying a subpoena. He'd go to court and insist the summons is illegal, and then the fighting would begin. It's all moot, because they will not subpoena him anyway.

It might be moot in that they won’t subpoena him because they don’t want to have that political fight but in the end if they want to make him testify they can - he has no choice. It’s that or jail.

 

[NWRMidnight]

What litigation?

1) Senate issues subpoena.
2) Trump defies subpoena.
3) Senate refers Trump to DOJ.
4) DOJ arrests Trump.

I think you’re confusing his ability to ignore subpoenas when he controlled the DOJ to now, when he is a private citizen. He would be free to not show up, but that would be from a jail cell.

DOJ has nothing to do with enforcing subpoena's of Congress, nor is it an offense the DOJ can arrest him for. That is all on the Sargant of Arms of the Congress.

 

[BoomerD]

DOJ has nothing to do with enforcing subpoena's of Congress, nor is it an offense the DOJ can arrest him for. That is all on the Sargant of Arms of the Congress.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45653#:~:text=Besides%20leveraging%20its%20general%20legislative,subpoenas%20in%20the%20federal%20courts

.

The Current Process: Criminal Contempt and Civil Enforcement of Subpoenas Besides leveraging its general legislative powers, Congress currently relies on two formal legal mechanisms to enforce subpoenas: criminal contempt of Congress and civil enforcement of subpoenas in the federal courts. Criminal Contempt of Congress The criminal contempt of Congress statute, enacted in 1857 and only slightly modified since, makes the failure to comply with a duly issued congressional subpoena a criminal offense.24 The statute, now codified under 2 U.S.C. § 192, provides that any person who “willfully” fails to comply with a properly issued committee subpoena for testimony or documents is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a substantial fine and imprisonment for up to one year.25 The criminal contempt statute outlines the process by which the House or Senate may refer the non-compliant witness to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal prosecution. Under 2 U.S.C. § 194, once a committee reports the failure to comply with a subpoena to its parent body, the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House is directed to “certify[] the statement of facts . . . to the appropriate United States attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.” 26 The statute does not expressly require approval of the contempt citation by the committee’s parent body, but both congressional practice and judicial decisions suggest that approval may be necessary. 27 Although approval of a criminal contempt citation under § 194 appears to impose a mandatory duty on the U.S. Attorney to submit the violation to a grand jury, the executive branch has repeatedly asserted that it retains the discretion to determine whether to do so.28
A successful contempt prosecution may lead to criminal punishment of the witness in the form of incarceration, a fine, or both.29 Because the criminal contempt statute is punitive, its use is mainly as a deterrent. In other words, while the threat of criminal contempt can be used as leverage to encourage compliance with a specific request, a conviction does not necessarily lead to release of the information to Congress.30

No personal commentary, 5th time.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[NWRMidnight]

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45653#:~:text=Besides%20leveraging%20its%20general%20legislative,subpoenas%20in%20the%20federal%20courts

.



No personal commentary, 5th time.

Perknose
Forum Director

Thanks BoomerD! I stand corrected.

Perknose: With all due respect, I understand the rules, but I understand why he didn't say anything, as the quoted text from that link said it all. He just schooled me, and showed me I was wrong. So don't be to hard on him. Thanks!

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

I'll withold comment about no comments other than to support your comment on lack of comments.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Hey, Senate, ya' listenin'?

56% of Americans Say Trump Should Be Convicted Ahead of Senate Trial: Poll

Public support for Trump's conviction by the Senate is higher now than during his first impeachment in early 2020, according to the ABC News/Ipsos study.

www.newsweek.com

 

[zinfamous]

Hey, Senate, ya' listenin'?

56% of Americans Say Trump Should Be Convicted Ahead of Senate Trial: Poll

Public support for Trump's conviction by the Senate is higher now than during his first impeachment in early 2020, according to the ABC News/Ipsos study.

www.newsweek.com

Hey, that's the highest overall public support that Trump's ever gotten for anything!

 

[zzyzxroad]

Hey, Senate, ya' listenin'?

56% of Americans Say Trump Should Be Convicted Ahead of Senate Trial: Poll

Public support for Trump's conviction by the Senate is higher now than during his first impeachment in early 2020, according to the ABC News/Ipsos study.

www.newsweek.com

I hope this number only grows as people like Rudolph the black cheeked lawyer are called to testify. This trial isn't about the insurrection at the capitol it is the bogus narrative Trump and friends pushed leading up to it.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

I'm not sure what's happening here, but hopefully a bit of an awakening:

Senator Pat Toomey Calls Trump's Upcoming Trial 'Constitutional'

The Republican lawmaker assessed that it's "very unlikely" that Trump will be convicted by the Senate.

www.newsweek.com

GOP Senator Suggests Impeachment Vote Won't Mirror Constitutionality Vote

The Republican lawmaker said whether Trump is convicted "depends upon that which is presented" during the Senate trial.

www.newsweek.com

 

[woolfe9998]

Here is the House impeachment managers' trial brief:

house_trial_brief_final | DocumentCloud

beta.documentcloud.org

It's a good read. I recommend at least getting through the statement of facts.

Other than to argue that you can't impeach a POTUS after they leave office, Trump has no argument that he didn't violently try to overturn the results of an election he lost. The facts leave zero room for doubt. I think what we're going to see starting tomorrow is Trump's defense team trying to avoid even discussing the facts.

 

[fskimospy]

Here is the House impeachment managers' trial brief:

house_trial_brief_final | DocumentCloud

beta.documentcloud.org

It's a good read. I recommend at least getting through the statement of facts.

Other than to argue that you can't impeach a POTUS after they leave office, Trump has no argument that he didn't violently try to overturn the results of an election he lost. The facts leave zero room for doubt. I think what we're going to see starting tomorrow is Trump's defense team trying to avoid even discussing the facts.

I read in an article somewhere that Republicans are asking Trump's defense team to steer as far away as possible from the events of 1/6. So basically they are telling his defense team that attempting to defend the actions that led to Trump's impeachment would make it harder for them to acquit him.

 

[woolfe9998]

I read in an article somewhere that Republicans are asking Trump's defense team to steer as far away as possible from the events of 1/6. So basically they are telling his defense team that attempting to defend the actions that led to Trump's impeachment would make it harder for them to acquit him.

Which is absolutely true. And not just avoiding 1/6, but everything that happened before it. His persistent lying and corrupt attempts to overturn the election. And another thing surprised me a bit since I purposefully avoided reading Trump's tweets, was his violent rhetoric prior to 1/6. He literally said "fight to the death against this act of war by radical left democrats," among other things.

The notion that Trump would be allowed to even run for dog catcher after this conduct is an outrage. The American people need to see this narrative explained at this trial.

 

[hal2kilo]

Other than to argue that you can't impeach a POTUS after they leave office, Trump has no argument that he didn't violently try to overturn the results of an election he lost. The facts leave zero room for doubt. I think what we're going to see starting tomorrow is Trump's defense team trying to avoid even discussing the facts.

Kind of like the last impeachment trial.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Kind of like the last impeachment trial.

Maybe this time there will actually be a presentation of evidence and testimony though

 

[zzyzxroad]

Maybe this time there will actually be a presentation of evidence and testimony though

Right! Things you would normally have in a Senate impeachment trial. I like how the republicans still think because Mitch don't have a real trial in the first impeachment that Trump didn't do anything wrong.

It bothers me that just because the GOP has given cover to Trump that trump supporters thing that means he hasn't done a bunch of bad stuff. The Ukraine thing was really bad and the Mueller investigating specifically avoiding look into any financial maters regarding Trump was absurd. An investigation that doesn't follow the money is no investigation as all.

 

[ewdotson]

Maybe this time there will actually be a presentation of evidence and testimony though

I'm going to be super-upset if there isn't. Politico Playbook is trash, but they're reporting that the Dem leadership may try to get things over with as quickly as possible. Awful, if true.

https://www.politico.com/newsletter...c-impeachment-managers-feeling-muzzled-491672

 

[hal2kilo]

I'm going to be super-upset if there isn't. Politico Playbook is trash, but they're reporting that the Dem leadership may try to get things over with as quickly as possible. Awful, if true.

https://www.politico.com/newsletter...c-impeachment-managers-feeling-muzzled-491672

Sort of makes sense when you have a good idea of what the outcome is going to be, no matter what evidence is presented.

 

[IronWing]

Maybe this time there will actually be a presentation of evidence and testimony though

That would confuse the Republicans mightily.

Reps: Boofin' Brett is well qualified for the Supremes.
Dems: How so?
Reps: He served in the Bush White House.
Dems: Okay, let's take a look at the job he did there.
Reps: Can't do that; it's a secret!

Dems: Trump committed treason.
Mitch: Oh, hey, lunch time!

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

If they After they flubber it again, maybe the DOJ will act and we'll have a real trial, with a real Judge and jury and some real consequences.

 

[hal2kilo]

I guess this fits here. Looks like Trump was "salting the mines" in the state legislatures to get Electoral College votes over turned.

Report: Trump Campaign Paid an Arizona Lawmaker Amid Efforts to Overturn State Election Results – Mother Jones

 

[fskimospy]

Sort of makes sense when you have a good idea of what the outcome is going to be, no matter what evidence is presented.

I don't agree - I think not having witnesses is a mistake. Even though Trump's not going to be convicted they should spend as much of the time as possible reminding both the Senate and America the consequences of Trump's insurrection.