Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The aid includes Javelin anti-tank missiles. Zelensky says he wants more of the missiles, and Trump responds by asking him for a "favor."

For more detail, see this thread from the National Review's David French: https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/sta...69185009459200

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Adder

It's kind of uncanny how Zelensky talks 45's language in that memo.

I'd love to be on that world leaders' facebook group where they discuss the best way to get what they want out of him.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You bear the burden of proof. I'd defend that all day long for a nice check. And I think I could beat it. Criminally and before the Senate.

Whatever. Engaging you on something like this is as smart as pounding one's head against an anvil.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

So to prove this, Zelensky’s and Trump’s internal understandings of what was taking place would have to be proven. Putting aside circumstantial evidence, which will not work in a prosecution this significant, proving their internal motives, and a meeting of the minds, can be done how?

Are you serious? First of all, you can get a criminal conviction with only circumstantial evidence if a jury decides it doesn't have reasonable doubt. But more importantly, the question is impeachment, not a prosecution. There aren't going be criminal charges and no judge is going to hear the case. The Congress is going to gather a lot of evidence, and then each Member is going to have to decide how to vote. No judge or statute tells Congress how to do that. It is, as you already said, a political question.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Are you serious? First of all, you can get a criminal conviction with only circumstantial evidence if a jury decides it doesn't have reasonable doubt. But more importantly, the question is impeachment, not a prosecution. There aren't going be criminal charges and no judge is going to hear the case. The Congress is going to gather a lot of evidence, and then each Member is going to have to decide how to vote. No judge or statute tells Congress how to do that. It is, as you already said, a political question.

The issue is, is there enough grey there for more than 1/3 of the Senate to say it's not enough to convict regardless of politics.

There is. If I were a senator's PR flack, I could easily spin that as a bunch of potentially bad facts, but no conclusive proof. "It's troubling, concerning, but I have a Constitutional duty to uphold, and this simply isn't enough to undo the will of the voters." Easy peasy. All. Day. Long.*

(As an aside, you've never been in the crim trenches, have you? A he said/she said on a crime of intent, with just circumstantial evidence is super difficult to prove. That gets pleaded out. The only time you see that go forward is when somebody's wired. Or somebody flips. Even if you flipped Zelensky, the conversation isn't clearly a quid pro quo. If the Ds can flip an insider who Trump confided with about holding back the gun money to get dirt on Biden, then you'd have him by the balls. That's where it'd get interesting.)

_____
* I'd also encourage more aggressively political R colleagues to spin this situation as analogous to the Steele Dossier, which I'd say was an equally troubling instance of a domestic admin using foreign intel against political opponents. Go ahead and argue the distinctions. Politically, they'll never be heard. Voters will see equivalence, and senators will acquire political cover.

...But this is all on evidence to date. Maybe more will come out. The horse race is just starting.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If I were a senator's PR flack, I could easily spin that

Yes, I'm sure you could do that.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

T Even if you flipped Zelensky, the conversation isn't clearly a quid pro quo.

It absolutely is, but it doesn't need to be. It is a crime for a campaign to request anything of value from a foreign national.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

It absolutely is, but it doesn't need to be. It is a crime for a campaign to request anything of value from a foreign national.

Crime of intent. Prove intent.

Also, he’s acting in official, not campaign, capacity. Prove otherwise.

Like the Clapper situation. Everyone knows he lied. But good luck proving intent to deceive Congress.

You have to flip an accomplice if this call is all you have.

ETA: Is Rudy the accomplice to flip? https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...dy-ncna1058196

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Crime of intent. Prove intent.

Also, he’s acting in official, not campaign, capacity. Prove otherwise.

How can you be such a brick? Rudy Giuliani already has a job -- what do you think you're doing?

The burden of proof in a criminal case has everything to do with the nature of a criminal case, which -- as you know, but pretend to keep forgetting -- this is not. Why do you just assume that a Congressman should use the same standard?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

How can you be such a brick? Rudy Giuliani already has a job -- what do you think you're doing?

The burden of proof in a criminal case has everything to do with the nature of a criminal case, which -- as you know, but pretend to keep forgetting -- this is not. Why do you just assume that a Congressman should use the same standard?

What the hell are you talking about in that first sentence?

On the second, which is slightly more coherent, who cares what any House member thinks? The only people who count are Senators.

Some bastardized version of crim or civil or mix of both standards will be used by more than 1/3 of senators to justify acquittal. Impeachment standards are vague and court standards speak directly to how to consider evidence.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What the hell are you talking about in that first sentence?

You keep pretending that this is a criminal case, and it is not.

Or maybe you are asking about the second sentence? The President has a personal lawyer who is defending him by saying lots of stupid things. He doesn't need another.

On the second, which is slightly more coherent, who cares what any House member thinks? The only people who count are Senators.

It never gets to the Senate if the House doesn't vote to impeach.

Some bastardized version of standards will be used by more than 1/3 of senators to justify acquittal. Impeachment standards are vague and court standards speak to directly to how to consider evidence.

If you're just trying to construct an ostensible justification for someone whose mind is made up for other reasons he does not want to share, fine. Not sure why you think that's a worthwhile pastime.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

...who cares what any House member thinks? The only people who count are Senators.

Who the fuck are you even arguing with? No one, repeat: no one on this board thinks this process will result in the requisite number of Senators voting to impeach. Are you dense? There is absolutely nothing Trump could do that would cause even the absolute minimum number of Republican Senators (what is that? 17?) to vote for impeachment. So stop with your ridiculous standards, burden of proof, and all this other bullshit.

The point of this is we all know he should be impeached. We should have a full investigation and all of the evidence should see the light of day. If Republicans want to vote against impeachment afterwards, let them. They absolutely should attach their names to that prick for all of eternity. But I want to see all of the evidence.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It never gets to the Senate if the House doesn't vote to impeach.

Has that ever happened? You can be pretty sure she has the votes or she wouldn’t have started this.

But here is the real question. On FB I have plenty of friends who are lawyers who actually try cases, I asked them a question but got no answer. Here I have friends who are lawyers who’ve never tried a case, but they do read political blogs, so maybe one of you will know?

Are there specific rules for the trial or does the Senate just have control? Rules of evidence? Who decides what to exclude? Is there a specific timeline, or can the Sebate park it for years? Depending on answers to those questions, this could be a big nothing burger that will blow up ugly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

No one, repeat: no one on this board thinks this process will result in the requisite number of Senators voting to impeach.

I don't think that's likely now, but I also think everyone is too likely to assume that present trends will simply continue, and we don't expect step changes. Impeachment will change things. It will change the way Trump behaves, and it will uncover more stuff. And other shit will happen in the world -- a war, a recession, an epidemic, something -- and he may be seen as mishandling it. And, don't forget: he has the brainworms.

Eventually, conservatives are going to disown Trump, when he gets unpopular, which is inevitable. It happened to George W. Bush, who was much less of a liability. The only way Trump avoids it is to drop dead soon. When he starts to lose conservative, things will tip, and it could happen while he's still in office.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Has that ever happened? You can be pretty sure she has the votes or she wouldn’t have started this.

I don't think that's the way she was thinking, and I sure hope it wasn't. She has more options if she keeps the inquiry open, gathering evidence.

But here is the real question. On FB I have plenty of friends who are lawyers who actually try cases, I asked them a question but got no answer. Here I have friends who are lawyers who’ve never tried a case, but they do read political blogs, so maybe one of you will know?

Are there specific rules for the trial or does the Senate just have control? Rules of evidence? Who decides what to exclude? Is there a specific timeline, or can the Sebate park it for years? Depending on answers to those questions, this could be a big nothing burger that will blow up ugly.

I've tried cases, so I'm not sure you want my answer, but see Rule VII here.