Whistling Dixie

This is a forum for discussing philosophical theories of government and social structure. It is not a venue for partisan rants or plugging favored candidates.

Whistling Dixie

Postby toucana on September 20th, 2019, 1:45 am 

The most detailed account of what really lies behind the current political furore over a whistleblower complaint within the US intelligence community can probably be found in this report by Kim Sengupta published recently by the British Independent newspaper.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-ukraine-joe-biden-military-aid-zelensky-kiev-a9111106.html

The allegation is that President Trump attempted to leverage Volodymyr Zelensky, the newly elected president of Ukraine, into re-opening a specious corruption enquiry into an energy company called Burisma by threatening to withhold a $250m package of military aid for Ukrainian forces which are confronting Russian backed separatists.

Trump’s motive for making such a play was to damage the reputation of Democrat politician Joe Biden who is likely to be one of Trump’s leading opponents in the 2020 US presidential election. The Trump administration has previously tried to make political capital out of claims that Joe Biden had once asked the Ukrainian authorities to drop a corruption probe into Burisma while serving as Barack Obama’s Vice President, because his son Hunter was a board member of Burisma.

Trump originally relied on his lawyer Rudy Giuliani to promote this scam, before sending Kurt Volker the US special representative to Ukraine to intercede with President Zelensky as well. President Trump refused to meet with newly elected President Zelensky, but did place a personal telephone call to the new president on July 25th during which Mr Trump allegedly told the Ukrainian president to reopen the Biden investigation if he wanted to improve relations with the US.

Trump’s Director of National intelligence Dan Coats was abruptly dismissed without explanation on July 28, and he in turn persuaded his own deputy Sue Gordon to resign as acting DNI just over a week later on August 8th, which coincides with the date when a formal whistleblower complaint was filed with Michael Atkinson, the Inspector General for Intelligence.

The IG found the whistleblower complaint to be ‘credible and urgent’ which meets a legal threshold that compels a mandatory notification of the relevant Congressional oversight committee chairs (The ‘Gang of 8’). Jospeh Maguire the acting DNI has so far refused to forward details of this complaint to these chairs.
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (10)


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby TheVat on September 20th, 2019, 12:43 pm 

Thanks, Toucana. Been following this. What seems to be a continuing method for maintenance of dictatorial executive power is to have as many cabinet offices as possible have "acting" in front of their job title. An acting director is not vetted by Congress, therefore this method erodes the "checks and balances" system of US democracy. Maguire is a Trump loyalist and lackey, rather than a public servant answerable to the American people and loyal to our interests in transparency and a government that is not corrupt.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7305
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby toucana on September 26th, 2019, 6:17 am 

Commentators have noted with interest that the date of the telephone call between president Trump and president Zelensky of Ukraine took place on 25th July, just one day after Robert Mueller's faltering and inconclusive testimony before Congress on Wednesday 24th July. It would appear that president Trump felt emboldened by having 'won' against the former special counsel.

The disputed whistleblower complaint has now apparently been declassified, and is set to be released in a redacted form by the end of the week. Some details have already been leaked, and one stands out in particular according to a new Washington Post report late last night.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/transcript-of-trumps-call-with-ukrainian-president-shows-him-offering-us-assistance-for-biden-investigation/2019/09/25/16aa36ca-df0f-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html

The WP report claims that members of president Trump's staff apparently tried to hide records of the president's telephone conversations with foreign leaders, including the one with Zelensky, on a separate computer server network from the one they would normally have been kept on. This was one of the details that alarmed intelligence officials and led to the whistleblower complaint.

Now where have I heard about senior US politicians allegedly hiding sensitive information on private servers before I wonder ?
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (10)


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby charon on September 26th, 2019, 7:20 am 

by threatening to withhold a $250m package of military aid for Ukrainian forces which are confronting Russian backed separatists.


Uh, huh, blackmail as well. Great.
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1899
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby toucana on September 27th, 2019, 7:43 pm 

"Many years ago I learned from one of our diplomats in China that one of the principal Chinese curses heaped upon an enemy is, 'May you live in an interesting age.'" - (Sir Austen Chamberlain 1936)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_times
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (10)


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby toucana on September 28th, 2019, 12:29 pm 

On 13 July 1973 a young presidential aide called Alexander Butterfield said reflectively “I was wondering if someone would ask that”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Butterfield

Butterfield was responding to a question by Donald Sanders, an investigator with the Senate Watergate Committee who had just asked whether by any chance a covert audio taping system had been installed in the White House. Butterfield had in fact been responsible for installing and maintaining it. He was one of just six people who knew of its existence.

It had taken almost a year of patient investigation to get to this point, and it would take over another year to get from that ‘smoking gun’ moment to president Nixon’s resignation in the face of imminent impeachment on 8th August 1974.

In the case of president Trump, it has taken just *one day* of a formal impeachment enquiry for members of Trump’s own staff to hand a smoking rocket launcher to Congressional investigators.

The release of the IGIC’s letter and synopsis of the 25th July telephone call between Trump and president Zelensky of Ukraine has been followed by new leaks confirming that Trump’s notorious closed-door meeting with Russian diplomats on 10 May 2017 had included an assurance that he didn’t mind Russia’s interference in the 2016 US presidential election. The latest leaks also confirm that the transcripts and digital records of that meeting were placed in the same code-word restricted archive that also houses Trump’s private exchanges with Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/27/trump-russia-election-interference-report

There is no earthly way that Trump’s presidency can survive this. In all probability he won’t even get to make the next SOTU speech in January 2020.
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (10)


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby TheVat on September 28th, 2019, 4:32 pm 

Unfortunately, the GOP Senate won't convict. Though it's widely rumored that 30-35 GOP Senators would vote to impeach in a secret ballot, our Senate does not allow that kind of vote on such resolutions. They all know it's political suicide to publicly go against Trump, and none are willing to fall on their sword and defy their loyalist constituents. The Trumpists really don't care about the law or the Constitution, so long as they get their tax cuts, their assault weapons, and the brown tide stopped at the southern border.

In 1974, bipartisanship was still alive. Those were the days, my friend.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7305
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby toucana on September 29th, 2019, 5:49 am 

Adam Schiff (D-CA) the chair of the House Intel committee was interviewed by Rachel Maddow of MSNBC the other evening, and he confirmed in response to one particular question that the House Intel committee had already issued evidential preservation orders on the archives cited in the whistleblower complaint to the IGIC.



Schiff also confirmed that he and fellow committee members have the legal authority both to request the surrender of those archives, and to inspect the contents of everything they contain, no matter what level of classification they carry.

The implications of that are potentially enormous. Trump and his lawyers have apparently been busy hiding all their deepest and most unsavoury secrets in this highly classified NSC archive from almost day one of his presidency. Now that its existence and contents are a matter of legal record (and concern), *all* of it may now have to come out.

People said back in July 1973 that the Senate would never convict president Richard Nixon - (I know, because I was over there for two months in the USA that summer, on my first ever trip age 20.) But they proved to be wrong then, and may well be wrong yet again.
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (10)


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby TheVat on September 29th, 2019, 11:22 am 

Mere words cannot convey how much I'd like to be wrong.

Whatever happens, many Americans are quite interested in what Trump said to leaders like MBS and Putin, recorded and squirreled away in the codeword-level archive. Even without a conviction, swing voters likely to vote in 2020 might be influenced by what is exposed there.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7305
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby toucana on October 4th, 2019, 1:44 am 

MSNBC has published a segment on the Washington Post's story about another whistleblower report that's currently before chairman Richard Neal (D-MA) of the House Ways and Means committee.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/wat ... 0592581824

This time it's apparently an IRS staffer flagging up concerns about a political appointee within the Treasury department allegedly trying to obstruct an IRS audit of the tax affairs of either the president or the VP.
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (10)


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby TheVat on October 4th, 2019, 12:56 pm 

Gosh, why would anyone want to obstruct an audit of Trump? It's not as if he's spent the past three years strenuously blocking even the most routine inquiries into his business and tax dealings in a matter only previously observed in members of crime families and/or drug lords. He is a stable genius with the highest IQ in the history of the Presidency who is sadly being maligned and persecuted by Democratic political hacks who are relentlessly pursuing his ouster and striving to institute godless global socialism which will require us to all wear burlap sacks, eat oatmeal and soymilk, undergo forced sterilization and worship Gaia! I mean, aside from that pesky thing called "law," and that other nuisance called "accountability and transparency," why shouldn't he pressure officials in independent agencies to become his loyal lackeys and. of course, richly reward the ones who were prepared for lackey-dom right from the gitgo?

Anyway, all the best people, all the really smart people, don't pay the taxes they owe. Trump told us that three years ago, and I believe him!
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7305
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby doogles on October 11th, 2019, 5:19 pm 

This turned up in my emails. I am ignorant of the source and subject matter, but post it without comment for consideration by fellow members who may be interested in such things. It's a 'What if ????'.

"LET THEM GO AHEAD AND IMPEACH TRUMP... HERE'S WHAT HAPPENS THEN......

By: Hyram F. Suddfluffel, PhD, (Political Science)

I have a degree in Political Science, and I am a card-carrying Libertarian. I've been studying politics and political history for the past 30 years. My specialty is U.S. Presidents. That said, I hope that the House of Representatives impeaches Trump. Let me tell you what will happen next!

1. The House can pass articles of impeachment over the objections of the Republicans, and refer to the Senate for trial.

2. The Senate will conduct a trial. There will be a vote, and the Republicans will vote unanimously, along with a small number of Democrats, to not convict the President. Legally, it will all be over at that point.

3. However, during the trial, and this is what no one is thinking about right now, the President's attorneys will have the right to subpoena and question ANYONE THEY WANT.. That is different than the special counsel investigation, which was very one-sided. So, during the impeachment trial, we will be hearing testimony from James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Glenn Simpson, Donna Brazile, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Christopher Steele, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, James Clapper, and a whole host of other participants in this whole sordid affair and the ensuing cover up activities.

A lot of dirt will be dug up; a lot of truth will be unveiled. Finger pointing will occur. Deals will start being made, and suddenly, a lot of democrats will start being charged and going to prison.

All this, because, remember, the President's team will now, for the first time, have the RIGHT to question all of these people under oath – and they will turn on each other. That is already starting.

4. Lastly, one more thing will happen, the Senate will not convict the President. Nothing will happen to Trump. Most Americans are clueless about political processes, the law, and the Constitution. Most Americans believe that being impeached results in removal from office.
They don't understand that phase 2 is a trial in and by the Senate, where he has zero chance of conviction. Remember, the Senate is controlled by Republicans; they will determine what testimony is allowed -- and **everything** will be allowed, including: DNC collusion with the Clinton campaign to fix the election in favor of Hillary, the creation of the Trump dossier, the cover up and destruction of emails that very likely included incriminating information.

They will incriminate each other for lying to the FISA court, for spying and wiretapping the Trump campaign, and for colluding with foreign political actors, especially George Soros. After the Senate declines to convict the President, we will have an election, and Trump will win. It will be a backlash against democrat petulance, temper tantrums, hypocrisy and dishonesty. Even minorities will vote for Trump, because, for the first time, they will see that democrats have spent 2+ years focused on maintaining their own power, and not doing anything at all about black murders in Chicago, homelessness, opioids, and other important issues that are actually killing people. And, we will spend the following four years listening to politicians and pundits claim that the whole impeachment was rigged.

So let's move on to impeachment.

Hyram F. Suddfluffel, PhD"

User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby TheVat on October 11th, 2019, 6:14 pm 

Have to wonder who emails you this unsourced stuff. So many dubious statements, easily fact checked and debunked, wouldn't even know where to start. Sounds like a pseudonymous (can't find anyone with that name, with academic credentials) author, pulled from a Trumpist outlet like the Washington Examiner.

This statement....

However, during the trial, and this is what no one is thinking about right now, the President's attorneys will have the right to subpoena and question ANYONE THEY WANT...


appears incorrect, given that procedural rules in Congress differ from those in criminal law, and are historically subject to restrictions in regards to relevance.

Also, recent news developments have somewhat shifted matters in the Senate, as some members of the GOP are expressing increasing disaffection with Trump's recent actions.

Given our forum rules for PCF, I think we need better sourcing, and speculation based on better material than unsubstantiated George Soros conspiracies and the like. It's also an ad hominem device to dismiss criticism of the adminstration and presentation of evidenced malfeasance as "temper tantrums" from Democrats. Some of the criticism has been coming from Republicans as well, including a Senator from the very conservative state of Utah.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7305
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby toucana on October 11th, 2019, 8:44 pm 

This 'email' has already been fact-checked in some detail by Snopes and others

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hyram-suddfluffel-impeachment/
https://heavy.com/news/2019/09/hyram-f-suddfluffel-impeachment-origin-hoax/

Versions of this posting have been circulating in various forms since June. The earlier versions did not have attributions to Suddfluffel, and no such person has yet been found to exist.

It's basically a propaganda puff-piece being promoted by right-wing groups who are recycling conspiracy theories previously promulgated by QAnon fantasists, flat-earthers, fundamentalist christians, and other political groups who have a vested interest in trying to maintain that Donald Trump is a 'very stable genius' who can somehow survive the scandals currently engulfing his presidency.
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (10)


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby doogles on October 11th, 2019, 9:58 pm 

TheVat and Toucana, thank you for that. I'll stick to subjects I've researched in future. Apparently the procedures of impeachment are different from those described by this 'non-entity'?
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby doogles on October 13th, 2019, 5:37 pm 

It appears that although my un-researched post about impeachment of Trump was from a spurious source, the essence of the procedures mentioned, seemed to conform largely with those described by Wikipedia, which has a detailed outline of the history of impeachments and of the procedures -- see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach ... #Procedure

The article affirms that the Senate part of the trial does give both sides the power to call witnesses who have to testify at risk of being guilty of contempt. At least, that's the way I read it -- "The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. The House members, who are given the collective title of managers during the course of the trial, present the prosecution case, and the impeached official has the right to mount a defense with his or her own attorneys as well. Senators must also take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence. After hearing the charges, the Senate usually deliberates in private. The Constitution requires a two-thirds super majority to convict a person being impeached. ... "

The procedure seems to have the potential to dig up dirty laundry on all sides, but Trump seems to have the numbers to support him.

As I said, I'm not into politics, so I could be way off the mark. As an impartial observer, I'm still interested in comments (with supportive evidence) either way.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby toucana on October 14th, 2019, 8:33 pm 

You appear to have overlooked the issue of tests of relevance mentioned earlier by TheVat that would operate during the proceedings of a Senate impeachment trial.

President Trump’s favoured tactic of throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing how much of it sticks simply won’t work in any properly constituted court of law, and it would also fail in a far more fundamental way - Because there simply isn’t any truth or substance in the perfervid accusations which some right-wing firebrands keep trying to brandish.

To take one outstanding example: Andrew McCabe who took over the running of the FBI after director James Comey was fired in May 2017, was himself later victimised by Trump by being driven out of his job and sacked in March 2018 just days before he was due to qualify for his pension. It was then announced that a formal DOJ enquiry into McCabe was being carried out by the IG and that criminal charges against McCabe were under consideration.

On 12 September 2019 the US Attorney’s office announced that they planned to move forward with criminal charges against Andrew McCabe - There was only one problem - No charges have ever materialised !

After a week or so, lawyers representing Andrew McCabe became curious as to what was really going on and discovered that the Grand jury that was supposed to be involved in the DOJ case had apparently refused to return any indictments against Andrew McCabe because there was no evidential foundation to any of the supposed charges.

If you are familiar with how Grand juries work in the US, then you will know just how unusual this is. Prosecutors normally boast that they can get a Grand jury to “Indict a ham sandwich”.

The latest state of play in the case of Andrew McCabe was reported thus in the WP on 1 October 2019 (quoted at length because it’s behind a pay-wall)
A veteran federal judge on Monday warned U.S. prosecutors either to charge former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe or to drop their investigation into whether he lied to investigators about an unauthorized media disclosure, saying their indecision was undermining the credibility of the Justice Department.

If a decision is not made, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton of Washington, D.C., said at a hearing that he would order the Justice Department to release internal FBI documents related to McCabe’s firing by Nov. 15.

The extraordinary warning by Walton — a 2001 President George W. Bush appointee and former presiding judge of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court — marked the latest turbulence in an investigation that McCabe’s defenders say is a move by the Trump administration to punish the president’s perceived political enemies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/judge-to-doj-decide-on-charging-andrew-mccabe-by-nov-15-or-face-release-of-fbi-records/2019/10/01/3e169168-e3c4-11e9-a331-2df12d56a80b_story.html
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (10)


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby doogles on October 15th, 2019, 4:39 am 

Thank you Toucana for your comment.

You suggested that I "appear to have overlooked the issue of tests of relevance mentioned earlier by TheVat that would operate during the proceedings of a Senate impeachment trial."

I checked through this site -- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach ... #Procedure -- again and could find no reference to any 'tests of relevance'.

I've somehow missed the point of how this failure of the Department of Justice to build a criminal case against Andrew McCabe have any relevance to the Wikipedia outline of procedures in a Senate Part of Impeachment procedures? But that could be due to poor understanding on my part.

Has the author of the Wikipedia article left something out of his dissertation on the procedures of impeachment? The statement in part -- " … The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. ... " seems to be straight-forward to me and it does not seem to have any qualifying clauses. If tests of relevance were to be applied, wouldn't they apply to individual witnesses from either side? Surely tests of relevance would not apply across the board to all witnesses for both sides.

Toucana, are you able to find an official Impeachment-Proceedings document that talks about 'Tests of Relevance'?
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby toucana on October 15th, 2019, 6:24 am 

Doogles, I suggest you open up a textbook and take a quick course on basic criminal legal procedure. Better still, just sit down and watch a few episodes from an old series of the Perry Mason TV show from the early 1960s and watch what happens when a trial attorney attempts to introduce irrelevant material in front of a judge.

"Objection your honour"
"Objection granted, the jury will ignore the last question and the stenographer will strike it from the record".

This is so basic and fundamental to all legal procedure that Wikipedia (which is hardly an exhaustive legal reference to start with) wouldn't bother to spoon-feed their readers with anything so elementary. Trying to quibble about whether Wikipedia refers to criminal relevance is rather like Trump's more witless enablers trying to argue that he didn't actually say the Latin phrase quid pro quo in his now notorious phone call with president Zelensky.

The point of referring you to the Andrew McCabe case was to illustrate just how vacuous and content free all of these 'Deep State' conspiracy theories about the FBI really are; and just how quickly they fall apart when put under forensic scrutiny by competent lawyers. None of the tales being peddled by right-wing sources about Peter Storzk, Lisa Page, Loretta Lynch, Christopher Steele et al. stand up to a even a few moments of critical scrutiny. It's all Fox News froth and fury.

For someone who says that "I'm not really into politics" you seem to be rather keen on promoting unsourced and untrue pro-Trump talking points. Would you like to explain why ?
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (10)


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby doogles on October 15th, 2019, 8:12 am 

Sorry Toucana. This is now becoming weird. We seem to be talking about two very different things.

Firstly, let me clear up this irrelevant point. When you say " … you seem to be rather keen on promoting unsourced and untrue pro-Trump talking points. Would you like to explain why?", I have to say that I'm not aware of taking sides with anyone about anything. Such politics are of no interest to me, but rules of procedure are.

I'm simply talking about established procedures for dealing with Impeachments in the USA quite independently of who is being impeached and who may be called by the Senate part of it as witnesses. Please be clear on that.

You do not seem to be addressing the Senate procedure. Instead you seem to be making the point that in law, anyone's testimony can be challenged for relevance. I have no problems with that at all. And I imagine that as a result of the Senate procedure -- (" … The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. ... "), that any individual can have their testimony challenged for relevance. As I said, I have no problems with that.

My spurious author stated that "However, during the trial, and this is what no one is thinking about right now, the President's attorneys will have the right to subpoena and question ANYONE THEY WANT.." He cited a list of possible witnesses. Forget about the people whom he suggested may be cross-questioned; I have no idea who they are and I don't care who they are.

You may remember that TheVat queried that role of the Senate as espoused by the spurious author when he said --
"This statement.... 'However, during the trial, and this is what no one is thinking about right now, the President's attorneys will have the right to subpoena and question ANYONE THEY WANT...' appears incorrect, given that procedural rules in Congress differ from those in criminal law, and are historically subject to restrictions in regards to relevance." According to Wikipedia, that statement does not appear to be incorrect.

It's the query on this role of the Senate by TheVat that I researched.

Do you find the Wikipedia statement of this role of the Senate to be in error? I have provided a direct reference to the article twice so far for anyone to check. I'm always willing to stand corrected if presented with relevant evidence.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby TheVat on October 15th, 2019, 9:45 am 

First, regarding the difference between criminal trials and Senate impeachment trials....

What are the rules for a Senate trial?
There are no set rules. Rather, the Senate passes a resolution first laying out trial procedures.

“When the Senate decided what the rules were going to be for our trial, they really made them up as they went along,” Gregory B. Craig, who helped defend Mr. Clinton in his impeachment proceeding and later served as White House counsel to President Barack Obama, told The Times in 2017.

For example, Mr. Craig said, the initial rules in that case gave Republican managers four days to make a case for conviction, followed by four days for the president’s legal team to defend him. These were essentially opening statements. The Senate then decided whether to hear witnesses, and if so, whether it would be live or on videotape. Eventually, the Senate permitted each side to depose several witnesses by videotape.

The rules adopted by the Senate in the Clinton trial — including ones limiting the number of witnesses and the length of depositions — made it harder to prove a case compared with trials in federal court, said former Representative Bob Barr, Republican of Georgia who served as a House manager during the trial and is also a former United States attorney.

“Impeachment is a creature unto itself,” Mr. Barr said. “The jury in a criminal case doesn’t set the rules for a case and can’t decide what evidence they want to see and what they won’t


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/p ... ained.html

Second, on standards for relevance...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-806.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiCubKMsJ7lAhUMPq0KHVzUBjYQFjAMegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw38czF0wkUpFHrgMJoOfOnb

When pleadings have concluded, the Senate will set a date for trial.29 Upon
establishing this date, the Senate will order the House managers or their counsel to supply
the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate with information regarding witnesses who are to be
subpoenaed, and will further indicate that additional witnesses may be subpoenaed by
application to the Presiding Officer.30 Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the
Constitution, the Chief Justice presides over the Senate impeachment trial if the President
is being impeached.
In impeachment trials, the full Senate may receive evidence and take testimony, or
may order the Presiding Officer to appoint a committee of Senators to serve this purpose.
If the latter option is employed, the committee will present a certified transcript of the
proceedings to the full Senate. The Senate will determine questions of competency,
relevancy, and materiality.
The Senate may also take further testimony in open Senate,
or may order that the entire trial be before the full Senate....


As the bolded line suggests, fishing expeditions will be blocked, so that the trial can proceed in an expeditious manner. Senators can do things in shaping the proceedings that jurors cannot. This happened in previous trials, and tests of relevance were applied in Clinton, Nixon, and Johnson proceedings.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7305
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
doogles liked this post


Re: Whistling Dixie

Postby doogles on October 15th, 2019, 5:41 pm 

Unfortunately TheVat, that New York Times reference by Charlie Savage had a paywall after the first few paragraphs, so I couldn't check it in toto.

But your second reference seems quite relevant and does seem to be a set of guidelines for proceedings in the Senate -- 22 “Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on Impeachment Trials,” printed in Senate Manual, S. Doc. 104-1, 104th Cong., 1st Sess., §§ 100-126, at 177-85 (1995). That's excellent. It was what I was looking for without success. There is an official set of Rules and Procedures and it is not inconsistent with the what the Wikipedia researcher stated. Thank you.

When you say "There are no set rules. Rather, the Senate passes a resolution first laying out trial procedures.", that does not seem to be strictly correct because your second reference IS to a set of rules.

In the case of Clinton in 1998, it looks as if the Senate ignored that set of rules and made up its own as it went along. I'm surprised that if they had a Chief Justice presiding at Clinton's Impeachment that he did not insist on following the 1995 Guidelines. Maybe the Senate can do that and get away with it. It seems to me that Gregory P Craig was complaining when he said “When the Senate decided what the rules were going to be for our trial (Clinton's), they really made them up as they went along,” rather than stating accepted methodology of the Senate.

You may have not expressed yourself clearly when you said in an earlier post "This statement.... 'However, during the trial, and this is what no one is thinking about right now, the President's attorneys will have the right to subpoena and question ANYONE THEY WANT...' appears incorrect, given that procedural rules in Congress differ from those in criminal law, and are historically subject to restrictions in regards to relevance."

The 'trial' of course occurs in the Senate, and the Senate " ... will order the House managers or their counsel to supply the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate with information regarding witnesses who are to be subpoenaed, and will further indicate that additional witnesses may be subpoenaed by application to the Presiding Officer.30 Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution." So the Senate can subpoena anyone they choose. And that is what our anonymous author said. He may have been a fraud, but his description of Impeachment Procedure appears to have been correct. At least that's the way I see it. It also states that "witnesses may be examined and cross-examined", and there is a rider of course that "The Senate will determine Questions of competency, relevancy and materiality".

This latter seems to be a departure from normal Law wherein counsellors do the 'questioning', and the relevance is determined by the Judge or Magistrate. And 'relevancy' is only a secondary issue when witnesses are being questioned.

But essentially I still see that the spurious author I cited without researching (unfortunately now), was correct in his description of Senate procedure, in stating that witnesses from all sides could be cross-examined, and that it would be in a situation where the impeached person (Trump) would have the voting numbers on his side.

I hope I have come over as objective and impartial of politics in this discussion, because that is always my intent.

Maybe we just have to leave it at that for members of this forum to judge for themselves.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE



Return to Political Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests

cron