The Impeachment Trial

[rogue06]

Interesting analysis from one of my favorite sources:

White House Counsel Patrick Philbin explains why House subpoenas were illegitimate: the subpoena power was never authorized; the initiating subpoena power was never voted on.

Additionally, and specifically by design, absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch had no constitutional pathway or process to engage an appellate review by federal courts. Make no mistake, this was a pre-planned purposeful trick within the Pelosi, Schiff and Lawfare road-map.

The House motive here, the forethought within their design, is very important now because it explains why they are vociferously demanding witnesses in the Senate. The House plan was to work around the ability of the executive branch to go to court. The managers are now attempting to execute that plan, along with a manufactured political talking point, in the Senate trial.

The House intended for this to unfold exactly as it is happening.

...

CTH noted the structural issue last August, and the issue remained throughout the heavily manipulated proceedings. None of the House requests for testimony or documents held any enforcement authority because the House did not follow the constitutional process.

The House was not issuing subpoenas, it was issuing letters requesting voluntary witness participation and document production. Recently the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel explained this issue in a lengthy legal finding that leads to the same conclusion.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethba...-case-n2560099

I'd like to see the bolded part

[Mountain Man]

Sorry, here's the correct link what I quoted:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...hy-it-matters/

And the legal briefing in question:

https://www.scribd.com/document/4437...ity-01-19-2020

[Mountain Man]

Curiously, Democrat Chris Murphy says it's possible that some Democrats could vote against one or both of the articles.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-acquit-trump/

Although I wonder if this is a case of "possible but not likely".

[JimL]

The relevant questions are:

1) Who was Trump giving the order to, if no State Department officials were present?

2) Why would Trump expect this order to be carried out without his directing those State Department officials to do so (i.e., why relay orders to an "irregular channel"?)

3) Why did Trump lie about not knowing Lev Parnas and how does that lie reflect on his assertion of "no quid pro quo"?

--Sam

First thing that came to my mind. "I don't know the man, it's possible I was in a photo with him, I take pictures with a lot of people, but I don't know the man."

[Cow Poke]

The relevant questions are:

We are so very blessed to have somebody to tell us so clearly which "the relevant questions" are.

[Mountain Man]

"Today we heard a presentation that was strong and that was clear and it completely undermined the case of the Democrats and truly undermined the credibility of Adam Schiff," [Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)] said following the hearing. "The most effective thing that happened was when they first read – this was when the president's counsel first read the transcript of the phone call with the President of the United States and the President of Ukraine and then played the video of Adam Schiff with his fictionalized, made-up script."

"From where I was sitting, and I know the press couldn't see his face, but the blood drained from Adam Schiff's face as they played that video and his made-up words," Barrasso said.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethba...cript-n2560117

I wish someone had caught that on camera!

[Sam]

We are so very blessed to have somebody to tell us so clearly which "the relevant questions" are.

A chore but one that's unfortunately necessary.

Unless you're just here to gripe, in which case it's probably a bit aggravating.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

A chore but one that's unfortunately necessary.

And you do it so well!

Unless you're just here to gripe, in which case it's probably a bit aggravating.

--Sam

Not even a little, Sam. It's great to see you.

[Tassman]

Is it okay if I reject your hidden premise that if none of these questions can be answered your satisfaction that it proves Trump is guilty?

Nevertheless they need to be answered.

Again:

1) Who was Trump giving the order to, if no State Department officials were present?

2) Why would Trump expect this order to be carried out without his directing those State Department officials to do so (i.e., why relay orders to an "irregular channel"?)

3) Why did Trump lie about not knowing Lev Parnas and how does that lie reflect on his assertion of "no quid pro quo"?

[Mountain Man]

Nevertheless they need to be answered.

No they don't, because they're not honest unbiased questions.

[Mountain Man]

Ken Starr: "And so the appropriate question. Were crimes alleged in the articles in the common law of Presidential Impeachment? In Nixon, yes. In Clinton, yes. Here, no. A factor to be considered as the judges and the high court come as you will individually to your judgment."

[Cow Poke]

Ken Starr: "And so the appropriate question. Were crimes alleged in the articles in the common law of Presidential Impeachment? In Nixon, yes. In Clinton, yes. Here, no. A factor to be considered as the judges and the high court come as you will individually to your judgment."

Ken did a great job of calmly laying out the history.

Then... Prurua? Whatever his name.... he did a super job with the time line.

What was really interesting was the constant " the House Managers told you x... but they never told you y...."

[Mountain Man]

What was really interesting was the constant " the House Managers told you x... but they never told you y...."

Yep... when they said, "You should hear all the evidence," they meant it!

[Cow Poke]

Yep... when they said, "You should hear all the evidence," they meant it!

Philbin is doing a great job answering all of schifty's assertions that it wasn't a sham impeachment.

[Mountain Man]

Apparently the defense just shredded Hunter Biden and made a strong case that Trump had good reason to ask Ukraine to take a look at his dirty deals. As one commentator put it:

"Are Democrats really going to want to call witnesses, including Hunter Biden, after that presentation from Bondi? Yikes."

https://townhall.com/liveblog/2020/0...nald-trump-n89

And this brings up a good point. The Democrats might get Bolton, but reciprocity rules allow the defense to call whoever they want in return. Do Democrats really want to poke that bear?