hanimmal
Well-Known Member
But it also shows that our system is strong. If we wouldn't have had the Democratic wave in 2018, all of this would have been hidden by the Republicans.
And the world economy.
The Daily Blow by Blow Impeachment Hearings and Trial of Donald Trump
- Thread starter DIY-HP-LED
- Start date
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
More news from Lev, everybody's favorite rat! Seems he has a recording of Fat Donnie in action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy Pal Igor Fruman Taped Trump Trying to Fire Ukraine Ambassador: Lawyer
LORDY
The tape may contradict Trump’s claim that he does not know the two Giuliani associates who worked to have the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine removed.
www.thedailybeast.com
A recently indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani taped President Donald Trump calling for the firing of Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, according to the lawyer for a second Giuliani associate.
Joseph Bondy, a lawyer for Florida businessman Lev Parnas, told The Daily Beast that the recording was made by former partner Igor Fruman. Both men were arrested in October and charged with campaign-finance violations.
ABC News reported Friday morning that it reviewed audio of a dinner attended by Trump, Parnas, Fruman, and others. A voice that appears to be the president’s tells the group that he wanted to “get rid of” Yovanovitch, per ABC, an apparent contradiction to Trump’s claim that he does not know Parnas.
“Last year, before he was arrested, Mr. Parnas personally heard a recording of his April 30, 2018 dinner with the president and others, made by Mr. Fruman, at which the subject of Ambassador Yovanovitch was discussed,” Bondy said. “We have hoped that, to the extent this recording still existed, it would be released to Congress for use in the impeachment trial.”
A lawyer for Fruman was not at liberty to discuss the matter. ABC News review matches the description Bondy gave The Daily Beast. Unnamed sources told the network that Fruman made the recording, which The Daily Beast has not reviewed.
Parnas has previously described a dinner at Trump Hotel with supporters of the president in April 2018 that he and Fruman attended. He said that he raised concerns about Yovanovitch to Trump, and that the president then turned to an aide and told him she should be fired. At the time, Yovanovitch was the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Giuliani, Fruman, and Parnas were trying to have her fired.
Trump eventually recalled Yovanovitch in May 2019. Months later, he pressured Ukraine’s president to announce investigations of a company linked to the family of former Vice President Joe Biden. At the same time, Trump withheld military aid that Congress had appropriated for Ukraine. And his team refused to arrange a White House visit for Ukraine’s president, even though they had formally invited him. That pressure campaign is the focus of Democrats’ efforts to have Trump removed from the White House. His trial is currently underway in the Senate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy Pal Igor Fruman Taped Trump Trying to Fire Ukraine Ambassador: Lawyer
LORDY
The tape may contradict Trump’s claim that he does not know the two Giuliani associates who worked to have the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine removed.
Rudy Pal Igor Fruman Taped Trump Trying to Fire Ukraine Ambassador: Lawyer
The tape may contradict Trump’s claim that he does not know the two Giuliani associates who worked to have the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine removed.
A recently indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani taped President Donald Trump calling for the firing of Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, according to the lawyer for a second Giuliani associate.
Joseph Bondy, a lawyer for Florida businessman Lev Parnas, told The Daily Beast that the recording was made by former partner Igor Fruman. Both men were arrested in October and charged with campaign-finance violations.
ABC News reported Friday morning that it reviewed audio of a dinner attended by Trump, Parnas, Fruman, and others. A voice that appears to be the president’s tells the group that he wanted to “get rid of” Yovanovitch, per ABC, an apparent contradiction to Trump’s claim that he does not know Parnas.
“Last year, before he was arrested, Mr. Parnas personally heard a recording of his April 30, 2018 dinner with the president and others, made by Mr. Fruman, at which the subject of Ambassador Yovanovitch was discussed,” Bondy said. “We have hoped that, to the extent this recording still existed, it would be released to Congress for use in the impeachment trial.”
A lawyer for Fruman was not at liberty to discuss the matter. ABC News review matches the description Bondy gave The Daily Beast. Unnamed sources told the network that Fruman made the recording, which The Daily Beast has not reviewed.
Parnas has previously described a dinner at Trump Hotel with supporters of the president in April 2018 that he and Fruman attended. He said that he raised concerns about Yovanovitch to Trump, and that the president then turned to an aide and told him she should be fired. At the time, Yovanovitch was the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Giuliani, Fruman, and Parnas were trying to have her fired.
Trump eventually recalled Yovanovitch in May 2019. Months later, he pressured Ukraine’s president to announce investigations of a company linked to the family of former Vice President Joe Biden. At the same time, Trump withheld military aid that Congress had appropriated for Ukraine. And his team refused to arrange a White House visit for Ukraine’s president, even though they had formally invited him. That pressure campaign is the focus of Democrats’ efforts to have Trump removed from the White House. His trial is currently underway in the Senate.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/24/damning-new-audio-trump-illuminates-scandals-back-alleys/More news from Lev, everybody's favorite rat! Seems he has a recording of Fat Donnie in action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy Pal Igor Fruman Taped Trump Trying to Fire Ukraine Ambassador: Lawyer
LORDY
The tape may contradict Trump’s claim that he does not know the two Giuliani associates who worked to have the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine removed.
Rudy Pal Igor Fruman Taped Trump Trying to Fire Ukraine Ambassador: Lawyer
The tape may contradict Trump’s claim that he does not know the two Giuliani associates who worked to have the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine removed.
A recently indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani taped President Donald Trump calling for the firing of Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, according to the lawyer for a second Giuliani associate.
Joseph Bondy, a lawyer for Florida businessman Lev Parnas, told The Daily Beast that the recording was made by former partner Igor Fruman. Both men were arrested in October and charged with campaign-finance violations.
ABC News reported Friday morning that it reviewed audio of a dinner attended by Trump, Parnas, Fruman, and others. A voice that appears to be the president’s tells the group that he wanted to “get rid of” Yovanovitch, per ABC, an apparent contradiction to Trump’s claim that he does not know Parnas.
“Last year, before he was arrested, Mr. Parnas personally heard a recording of his April 30, 2018 dinner with the president and others, made by Mr. Fruman, at which the subject of Ambassador Yovanovitch was discussed,” Bondy said. “We have hoped that, to the extent this recording still existed, it would be released to Congress for use in the impeachment trial.”
A lawyer for Fruman was not at liberty to discuss the matter. ABC News review matches the description Bondy gave The Daily Beast. Unnamed sources told the network that Fruman made the recording, which The Daily Beast has not reviewed.
Parnas has previously described a dinner at Trump Hotel with supporters of the president in April 2018 that he and Fruman attended. He said that he raised concerns about Yovanovitch to Trump, and that the president then turned to an aide and told him she should be fired. At the time, Yovanovitch was the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Giuliani, Fruman, and Parnas were trying to have her fired.
Trump eventually recalled Yovanovitch in May 2019. Months later, he pressured Ukraine’s president to announce investigations of a company linked to the family of former Vice President Joe Biden. At the same time, Trump withheld military aid that Congress had appropriated for Ukraine. And his team refused to arrange a White House visit for Ukraine’s president, even though they had formally invited him. That pressure campaign is the focus of Democrats’ efforts to have Trump removed from the White House. His trial is currently underway in the Senate.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Donald Trump Is Having a Full-on Impeachment Meltdown on Twitter
www.themarysue.com
Donald Trump sent out an absolutely mind-boggling 142 tweets or retweets Wednesday, according to the Trump-tracking account @FactbaseFeed. It was his most prolific day of tweeting, beating his previous record of 123 tweets and retweets. Wednesday was also the first day of Democrats’ opening remarks in the Senate impeachment trial. Do we think this is a coincidence? No, we do not.
Trump spent the day tweeting praise for himself and attacks on the Democratic presidential primary candidates. Many more tweets railed against the impeachment trial, including repeating GOP talking point lies about the process.
53.8K people are talking about this
Trump seems to have forgotten that it was him and his administration that blocked those witnesses from appearing in the House, and his toadies in the Senate who are blocking the witnesses now.
more...
Trump Having a Full-on Impeachment Meltdown on Twitter | The Mary Sue
Donald Trump is spending the impeachment hearings live-tweeting his own meltdown.
www.themarysue.com
Donald Trump sent out an absolutely mind-boggling 142 tweets or retweets Wednesday, according to the Trump-tracking account @FactbaseFeed. It was his most prolific day of tweeting, beating his previous record of 123 tweets and retweets. Wednesday was also the first day of Democrats’ opening remarks in the Senate impeachment trial. Do we think this is a coincidence? No, we do not.
Trump spent the day tweeting praise for himself and attacks on the Democratic presidential primary candidates. Many more tweets railed against the impeachment trial, including repeating GOP talking point lies about the process.
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1220328518288052225
The Democrat House would not give us lawyers, or not one witness, but now demand that the Republican Senate produce the witnesses that the House never sought, or even asked for? They had their chance, but pretended to rush. Most unfair & corrupt hearing in Congressional history!
126K
8:52 AM - Jan 23, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
53.8K people are talking about this
Trump seems to have forgotten that it was him and his administration that blocked those witnesses from appearing in the House, and his toadies in the Senate who are blocking the witnesses now.
more...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Now if only fruman and parnas had the ability to fire herMore news from Lev, everybody's favorite rat! Seems he has a recording of Fat Donnie in action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy Pal Igor Fruman Taped Trump Trying to Fire Ukraine Ambassador: Lawyer
LORDY
The tape may contradict Trump’s claim that he does not know the two Giuliani associates who worked to have the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine removed.
Rudy Pal Igor Fruman Taped Trump Trying to Fire Ukraine Ambassador: Lawyer
The tape may contradict Trump’s claim that he does not know the two Giuliani associates who worked to have the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine removed.
A recently indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani taped President Donald Trump calling for the firing of Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, according to the lawyer for a second Giuliani associate.
Joseph Bondy, a lawyer for Florida businessman Lev Parnas, told The Daily Beast that the recording was made by former partner Igor Fruman. Both men were arrested in October and charged with campaign-finance violations.
ABC News reported Friday morning that it reviewed audio of a dinner attended by Trump, Parnas, Fruman, and others. A voice that appears to be the president’s tells the group that he wanted to “get rid of” Yovanovitch, per ABC, an apparent contradiction to Trump’s claim that he does not know Parnas.
“Last year, before he was arrested, Mr. Parnas personally heard a recording of his April 30, 2018 dinner with the president and others, made by Mr. Fruman, at which the subject of Ambassador Yovanovitch was discussed,” Bondy said. “We have hoped that, to the extent this recording still existed, it would be released to Congress for use in the impeachment trial.”
A lawyer for Fruman was not at liberty to discuss the matter. ABC News review matches the description Bondy gave The Daily Beast. Unnamed sources told the network that Fruman made the recording, which The Daily Beast has not reviewed.
Parnas has previously described a dinner at Trump Hotel with supporters of the president in April 2018 that he and Fruman attended. He said that he raised concerns about Yovanovitch to Trump, and that the president then turned to an aide and told him she should be fired. At the time, Yovanovitch was the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Giuliani, Fruman, and Parnas were trying to have her fired.
Trump eventually recalled Yovanovitch in May 2019. Months later, he pressured Ukraine’s president to announce investigations of a company linked to the family of former Vice President Joe Biden. At the same time, Trump withheld military aid that Congress had appropriated for Ukraine. And his team refused to arrange a White House visit for Ukraine’s president, even though they had formally invited him. That pressure campaign is the focus of Democrats’ efforts to have Trump removed from the White House. His trial is currently underway in the Senate.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Just another nail in Donald's coffin, the democrats are using a pneumatic nailing gun and going at it like a machine gun! Imagine if witnesses and documents were subpoenaed what the case would be like, I mean they've already proved it a dozen different ways on what they have already. If the senate acquits this cocksucker the GOP majority will pay a price, the democrats will hear court ordered witnesses and compel documents in the house soon enough. It would be best if Donald were to leave office on short notice, after he's out he'll be indicted and then muzzled by a judge pretty quickly. I'm hoping for witnesses, documents and a secret senate vote on removal, but if he is acquitted, the end of the GOP senate majority as Donald leads them to disaster.
Let's hope Mitch sneaky fucks Donald, he's good at dirty tricks and such, Donald is threatening his majority and maybe even his own seat. His opponent in the senate race is a formidable lady veteran that congress should vote to give an honorary set of balls to (a medal like miniature truck nuts)!
Let's hope Mitch sneaky fucks Donald, he's good at dirty tricks and such, Donald is threatening his majority and maybe even his own seat. His opponent in the senate race is a formidable lady veteran that congress should vote to give an honorary set of balls to (a medal like miniature truck nuts)!
Nose candy..Trump* wanted to hook him so he'd specifically ask for more and that was Trumps* chance to corner him about announcing investigation.
That's exactly what happened.
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
it's scary when an old person in charge does this, afterall, isn't that how preteens act?Donald Trump Is Having a Full-on Impeachment Meltdown on Twitter
Trump Having a Full-on Impeachment Meltdown on Twitter | The Mary Sue
Donald Trump is spending the impeachment hearings live-tweeting his own meltdown.
Donald Trump sent out an absolutely mind-boggling 142 tweets or retweets Wednesday, according to the Trump-tracking account @FactbaseFeed. It was his most prolific day of tweeting, beating his previous record of 123 tweets and retweets. Wednesday was also the first day of Democrats’ opening remarks in the Senate impeachment trial. Do we think this is a coincidence? No, we do not.
Trump spent the day tweeting praise for himself and attacks on the Democratic presidential primary candidates. Many more tweets railed against the impeachment trial, including repeating GOP talking point lies about the process.
53.8K people are talking about this
Trump seems to have forgotten that it was him and his administration that blocked those witnesses from appearing in the House, and his toadies in the Senate who are blocking the witnesses now.
more...
Last edited:
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Pompeo has his meltdown last night 11-minute audio..check it, men:
Pompeo Won't Say Whether He Owes Yovanovitch An Apology. 'I've Done What's Right'
As the State Department faces ongoing questions over Marie Yovanovitch's treatment as U.S. envoy to Ukraine, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tells NPR, "I've defended every single person on this team."
www.npr.org
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
John Roberts calling the witnesses would mean John Roberts calling the shots and Mitch needing 2/3 to oppose him. This might make for a fair trial, Roberts won't preside over a farce kangaroo court, he's gonna be around for awhile and does not want the shame or shit. This could get interesting real quick, Roberts knows and cares about history (and his place in it), Donald has no such historical sense, only an instinct for survival, no wonder he is worried and tweeting like a lunatic!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Roberts Can Call Witnesses to Trump’s Trial. Will He?
Democratic House managers should ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas for John Bolton and others.
By Neal K. Katyal, Joshua A. Geltzer and Mickey Edwards
Mr. Katyal and Mr. Geltzer are law professors at Georgetown. Mr. Edwards is a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma.
www.nytimes.com
An overwhelming number of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, believe the Senate should hear from relevant witnesses and obtain documents during President Trump’s impeachment trial. Striking new revelations about the president’s role in the Ukraine affair, as reported from an unpublished manuscript by John Bolton, underscore the need for his testimony and that of others.
Yet Republican members of the Senate have signaled that they intend to uphold Mr. Trump’s unprecedented decision to block all of this material.
But it turns out they don’t get to make that choice — Chief Justice John Roberts does. This isn’t a matter of Democrats needing four “moderate” Republicans to vote for subpoenas and witnesses, as the Trump lawyers have been claiming. Rather, the impeachment rules, like all trial systems, put a large thumb on the scale of issuing subpoenas and place that power within the authority of the judge, in this case the chief justice.
Most critically, it would take a two-thirds vote — not a majority — of the Senate to overrule that. This week, Democrats can and should ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas on his authority so that key witnesses of relevance like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney appear in the Senate, and the Senate should subpoena all relevant documents as well.
The Senate rules for impeachment date back to 1868 and have been in effect since that time. They specifically provide for the subpoenas of witnesses, going so far in Rule XXIV as to outline the specific language a subpoena must use — the “form of subpoena to be issued on the application of the managers of the impeachment, or of the party impeached, or of his counsel.”
As you can see, there is no “Senate vote” requirement whatsoever in the subpoena rule. A manager can seek it on his own.
The rules further empower the chief justice to enforce the subpoena rule. Rule V says: “The presiding officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules, or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.” The presiding officer, under our Constitution, is the chief justice. As such, the chief justice, as presiding officer, has the “power to make and issue, by himself,” subpoenas.
President Trump’s allies have tried to distort a separate rule (also still in effect), hoping that it could be stretched to say that a majority of senators can override the chief justice’s decision. Rule VII reads, in the relevant part: “the presiding officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate.” So President Trump’s allies are hoping that last clause authorizes a majority of Senators to overrule the chief justice on matters including subpoena issuance.
But its plain text says otherwise. It’s carefully drawn to be about “questions of evidence”: whether, for example, a line of witness questioning is relevant or not. The issuance of a Rule XXIV subpoena, however, is not a question of evidence. In normal litigation, we’d call it a discovery question.
Whatever one calls it here, it simply isn’t an evidence question: It’s not about whether to admit into evidence a particular document, but about obtaining that document in the first place; and it’s not about whether a witness must answer a specific question, but about forcing that witness at least to show up. And that threshold question falls squarely under Rule V — meaning under the chief justice’s authority alone. And that’s why the Senate, despite outlining the rules for subpoenas, never made its subpoena rules governed by Rule VII.
If there were any doubt, recall the language of the Constitution, which orders that, in an impeachment trial of the president, “the Chief Justice shall preside.” To “preside” is not a merely symbolic role; it can mean, just as it meant during President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial, to be asked to make a range of actual rulings, including ones on which the chief justice is not merely the first word but also the last.
There’s a reason that, to our knowledge, no chief justice presiding over a president’s impeachment trial has had to confront precisely this issue before: No president has tried to hide all of the facts from Congress before. To be sure, previous presidents facing the prospect of impeachment — like Presidents Nixon and Clinton — have been accused of failing to share all of the information sought from them. But none ever vowed, as Mr. Trump has, to continue “fighting all the subpoenas” regardless of their particular validity. Ultimately, some accommodation was reached in previous impeachment inquiries as to the scope of information provided — including, for Mr. Clinton’s impeachment trial, an eventual agreement on witness testimony. If Chief Justice Roberts is being asked to answer difficult questions, it is a direct result of President Trump’s scorched-earth approach to congressional oversight.
The framers’ wisdom in giving this responsibility to a member of the judiciary expected to be apolitical and impartial has never been clearer. With key Republican senators having told the American people that they prejudged the case against President Trump before it began and even working with Mr. Trump’s lawyers to build the very defense for which they’re supposed to be the audience, the notion that they’re doing the “impartial justice” they’ve sworn to do is very much in question.
The Democrats’ impeachment managers should immediately ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas for key witnesses and documents, insisting that the Senate rules make him and him alone the decision maker about whether to “make and enforce” those subpoenas. That’s his prerogative — and his responsibility, one he can’t simply shift to the senators as permitted for evidentiary questions under the Rule VII carve-out.
What happens next won’t be totally within Democrats’ or the chief justice’s control. As Representative Adam Schiff acknowledged Thursday, the chief justice can decide evidence questions like executive privilege, but his determinations can be overruled by a majority of senators.
Likewise, when witnesses and documents arrive at the Senate, if questions arise about actual evidentiary rulings — like whether Mr. Bolton or Mr. Mulvaney can be forced to answer particular questions — a majority of senators can, under Rule VII, overrule the chief justice. But the first step is getting them to the Senate in the first place.
There’s icing on this cake. The special rules for Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial drafted by the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, establish certain obstacles for witness testimony, requiring a deposition first and only then a Senate vote on whether to allow the witness to testify. But those rules apply only to a particular category of witnesses — those called “if the Senate agrees” to them. They manifestly don’t apply when it’s the chief justice who orders witnesses to appear.
Mr. McConnell’s rules separately say that the Senate shall debate “whether it shall be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents.” That language cannot restrict Rule V’s pre-existing empowerment of the chief justice to issue subpoenas. To amend Rule V requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate, something Mr. McConnell didn’t get. That is presumably why the rules speak only to whether the Senate should subpoena witnesses or documents — but do not restrict the chief justice’s ability to issue subpoenas under his Rule V authority.
And that’s precisely what the Democrats must ask him to do — now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Roberts Can Call Witnesses to Trump’s Trial. Will He?
Democratic House managers should ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas for John Bolton and others.
By Neal K. Katyal, Joshua A. Geltzer and Mickey Edwards
Mr. Katyal and Mr. Geltzer are law professors at Georgetown. Mr. Edwards is a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma.
Opinion | John Roberts Can Call Witnesses to Trump’s Trial. Will He? (Published 2020)
Democratic House managers should ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas for John Bolton and others.
An overwhelming number of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, believe the Senate should hear from relevant witnesses and obtain documents during President Trump’s impeachment trial. Striking new revelations about the president’s role in the Ukraine affair, as reported from an unpublished manuscript by John Bolton, underscore the need for his testimony and that of others.
Yet Republican members of the Senate have signaled that they intend to uphold Mr. Trump’s unprecedented decision to block all of this material.
But it turns out they don’t get to make that choice — Chief Justice John Roberts does. This isn’t a matter of Democrats needing four “moderate” Republicans to vote for subpoenas and witnesses, as the Trump lawyers have been claiming. Rather, the impeachment rules, like all trial systems, put a large thumb on the scale of issuing subpoenas and place that power within the authority of the judge, in this case the chief justice.
Most critically, it would take a two-thirds vote — not a majority — of the Senate to overrule that. This week, Democrats can and should ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas on his authority so that key witnesses of relevance like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney appear in the Senate, and the Senate should subpoena all relevant documents as well.
The Senate rules for impeachment date back to 1868 and have been in effect since that time. They specifically provide for the subpoenas of witnesses, going so far in Rule XXIV as to outline the specific language a subpoena must use — the “form of subpoena to be issued on the application of the managers of the impeachment, or of the party impeached, or of his counsel.”
As you can see, there is no “Senate vote” requirement whatsoever in the subpoena rule. A manager can seek it on his own.
The rules further empower the chief justice to enforce the subpoena rule. Rule V says: “The presiding officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules, or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.” The presiding officer, under our Constitution, is the chief justice. As such, the chief justice, as presiding officer, has the “power to make and issue, by himself,” subpoenas.
President Trump’s allies have tried to distort a separate rule (also still in effect), hoping that it could be stretched to say that a majority of senators can override the chief justice’s decision. Rule VII reads, in the relevant part: “the presiding officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate.” So President Trump’s allies are hoping that last clause authorizes a majority of Senators to overrule the chief justice on matters including subpoena issuance.
But its plain text says otherwise. It’s carefully drawn to be about “questions of evidence”: whether, for example, a line of witness questioning is relevant or not. The issuance of a Rule XXIV subpoena, however, is not a question of evidence. In normal litigation, we’d call it a discovery question.
Whatever one calls it here, it simply isn’t an evidence question: It’s not about whether to admit into evidence a particular document, but about obtaining that document in the first place; and it’s not about whether a witness must answer a specific question, but about forcing that witness at least to show up. And that threshold question falls squarely under Rule V — meaning under the chief justice’s authority alone. And that’s why the Senate, despite outlining the rules for subpoenas, never made its subpoena rules governed by Rule VII.
If there were any doubt, recall the language of the Constitution, which orders that, in an impeachment trial of the president, “the Chief Justice shall preside.” To “preside” is not a merely symbolic role; it can mean, just as it meant during President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial, to be asked to make a range of actual rulings, including ones on which the chief justice is not merely the first word but also the last.
There’s a reason that, to our knowledge, no chief justice presiding over a president’s impeachment trial has had to confront precisely this issue before: No president has tried to hide all of the facts from Congress before. To be sure, previous presidents facing the prospect of impeachment — like Presidents Nixon and Clinton — have been accused of failing to share all of the information sought from them. But none ever vowed, as Mr. Trump has, to continue “fighting all the subpoenas” regardless of their particular validity. Ultimately, some accommodation was reached in previous impeachment inquiries as to the scope of information provided — including, for Mr. Clinton’s impeachment trial, an eventual agreement on witness testimony. If Chief Justice Roberts is being asked to answer difficult questions, it is a direct result of President Trump’s scorched-earth approach to congressional oversight.
The framers’ wisdom in giving this responsibility to a member of the judiciary expected to be apolitical and impartial has never been clearer. With key Republican senators having told the American people that they prejudged the case against President Trump before it began and even working with Mr. Trump’s lawyers to build the very defense for which they’re supposed to be the audience, the notion that they’re doing the “impartial justice” they’ve sworn to do is very much in question.
The Democrats’ impeachment managers should immediately ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas for key witnesses and documents, insisting that the Senate rules make him and him alone the decision maker about whether to “make and enforce” those subpoenas. That’s his prerogative — and his responsibility, one he can’t simply shift to the senators as permitted for evidentiary questions under the Rule VII carve-out.
What happens next won’t be totally within Democrats’ or the chief justice’s control. As Representative Adam Schiff acknowledged Thursday, the chief justice can decide evidence questions like executive privilege, but his determinations can be overruled by a majority of senators.
Likewise, when witnesses and documents arrive at the Senate, if questions arise about actual evidentiary rulings — like whether Mr. Bolton or Mr. Mulvaney can be forced to answer particular questions — a majority of senators can, under Rule VII, overrule the chief justice. But the first step is getting them to the Senate in the first place.
There’s icing on this cake. The special rules for Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial drafted by the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, establish certain obstacles for witness testimony, requiring a deposition first and only then a Senate vote on whether to allow the witness to testify. But those rules apply only to a particular category of witnesses — those called “if the Senate agrees” to them. They manifestly don’t apply when it’s the chief justice who orders witnesses to appear.
Mr. McConnell’s rules separately say that the Senate shall debate “whether it shall be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents.” That language cannot restrict Rule V’s pre-existing empowerment of the chief justice to issue subpoenas. To amend Rule V requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate, something Mr. McConnell didn’t get. That is presumably why the rules speak only to whether the Senate should subpoena witnesses or documents — but do not restrict the chief justice’s ability to issue subpoenas under his Rule V authority.
And that’s precisely what the Democrats must ask him to do — now.
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Mitt Romney: We should hear from John Bolton
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) told reporters that it's increasingly likely that more of his Republican colleagues will want to hear from former national security adviser John Bolton.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) told reporters that it's increasingly likely that more of his Republican colleagues will want to hear from former national security adviser John Bolton.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Bolton manuscript revelations thrust little-known White House office into spotlight
www.cnn.com
Washington (CNN) A little known part of the National Security Council has been thrust into the spotlight after details of an unpublished manuscript by former national security adviser John Bolton became public late Sunday, upending the Senate impeachment trial.
The records management office is located in the New Executive Office Building across the street from the White House. It is a process-focused office, so if something big is placed on their lap -- for instance, a former national security adviser writing a book that could change the trajectory of the President's impeachment trial -- they would typically consult the current NSA, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Something big indeed was placed in the hands of the officials who work there in recent weeks: a manuscript of Bolton's forthcoming book alleging Trump wanted to continue freezing security aid to Ukraine until he got help with investigations into Democrats.
The main job of the records office is to review potentially classified information for release, and it received Bolton's manuscript for that purpose in recent weeks.
3 ways Bolton's bombshells contradict Trump's defense
Typically, the records office has a quick turnaround, though multiple sources acknowledged that a book as explosive as Bolton's could take longer than usual submissions.
The declassification coordinators who work at the records management office have specific duties, like reviewing op-eds and congressional testimony. They are the ones who would review such a manuscript as Bolton's.
In addition to reviewing submissions for potential classification issues, the records management division also looks at issues related to the disclosure of information that might be covered by executive privilege. One source familiar with the process told CNN that they were under the impression this is one of the primary functions of the office when it receives something for pre-publication review.
"Presumably, if there is something in there where someone is talking about a conversation with the President, that at the minimum would trigger a look to see if its covered by executive privilege," the person said. "When you are referencing a conversation with the President, there are only so many people you can go to and talk about that."
"In the case of Bolton, he is referencing conversations so few people would have knowledge of so ... in order to pursue a legitimate process that's part of the prepublication review, you would have to go to somebody and the first stop would presumably someone connected to the NSC," they added.
more...
Bolton manuscript revelations thrust little-known White House office into spotlight
A little known part of the National Security Council has been thrust into the spotlight after details of an unpublished manuscript by former national security adviser John Bolton became public late Sunday, upending the Senate impeachment trial.
www.cnn.com
Washington (CNN) A little known part of the National Security Council has been thrust into the spotlight after details of an unpublished manuscript by former national security adviser John Bolton became public late Sunday, upending the Senate impeachment trial.
The records management office is located in the New Executive Office Building across the street from the White House. It is a process-focused office, so if something big is placed on their lap -- for instance, a former national security adviser writing a book that could change the trajectory of the President's impeachment trial -- they would typically consult the current NSA, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Something big indeed was placed in the hands of the officials who work there in recent weeks: a manuscript of Bolton's forthcoming book alleging Trump wanted to continue freezing security aid to Ukraine until he got help with investigations into Democrats.
The main job of the records office is to review potentially classified information for release, and it received Bolton's manuscript for that purpose in recent weeks.
3 ways Bolton's bombshells contradict Trump's defense
Typically, the records office has a quick turnaround, though multiple sources acknowledged that a book as explosive as Bolton's could take longer than usual submissions.
The declassification coordinators who work at the records management office have specific duties, like reviewing op-eds and congressional testimony. They are the ones who would review such a manuscript as Bolton's.
In addition to reviewing submissions for potential classification issues, the records management division also looks at issues related to the disclosure of information that might be covered by executive privilege. One source familiar with the process told CNN that they were under the impression this is one of the primary functions of the office when it receives something for pre-publication review.
"Presumably, if there is something in there where someone is talking about a conversation with the President, that at the minimum would trigger a look to see if its covered by executive privilege," the person said. "When you are referencing a conversation with the President, there are only so many people you can go to and talk about that."
"In the case of Bolton, he is referencing conversations so few people would have knowledge of so ... in order to pursue a legitimate process that's part of the prepublication review, you would have to go to somebody and the first stop would presumably someone connected to the NSC," they added.
more...
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
That cartoon is tripping.