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

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

I actually agree with Ty. It could get him out. The problem is timing though.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I've tried cases, so I'm not sure you want my answer,

when you say shit like this, I always think you sound so much like Trump why don’t you like him?

but see Rule VII here.

thank you. And now I feel even more so that the guy could get booted.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

when you say shit like this, I always think you sound so much like Trump

Ouch. I miss trying cases. It was fun. I picked the next job so that I could try more cases, and then it didn't work out that way.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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

The public and the senate will consider everything through a prism they know: General fed or state rules of evidence and standards of proof. They know this stuff, they see it on TV, it's the only applicable analogue.

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.

Oh, you're so pissy. I'm sorry I won't pick a side and argue with you about what I "believe."

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

If they vote to impeach or not impeach, who gives a shit? The Senate will not convict in the teeth of an election (unless an accomplice is flipped or irrefutable evidence is presented). Hence, Pelosi's wisdom. She hates where she is right now, but has no choice.

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.

Because those people will vote on whether Trump is impeached. You, OTOH, can only whine about why he should be impeached and if they don't vote for it, they are letting the country down. I'm not sure why your whining and adducing a pile of facts about how egregious Trump's behavior has been is of any value.

What's of value is how Democrats can time this correctly, and how Trump responds, and whether we have the mother of all shitshows: An election year impeachment of the most divisive President in history, which arguably he desires. This is the Kentucky Derby X 100, with a dozen Super Bowls on top.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.



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

I've tried more cases than you, I'm pretty sure, in different areas, too. It's not a badge of honor.

I've even been involved in beating Uncle Sam. Not many folks have that head on the wall. In crim and civil claims.

If you're trying cases a lot you're losing money and burning time better spent fucking your spouse. Settle and live to fight another day. Leave the trials to the shitheads who get high on that type of jerkoffery. (It is fun in the moment, I'll admit, like any game. But afterwards, it's like, "God, that was a dumb fucking waste of time." I just won a case two months ago, and I won a large hearing last week. What did I feel about it? Nothing. Empty. But I got some nice checks for it, which paid for fun things I could enjoy.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

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

Tell this to Ty. He wants to have the argument about the merits. And I think he thinks there'll be an impeachment which might succeed. I think he could possibly be right on the latter if an accomplice is flipped. I wonder how the politics and procedural games will employed and I'd like to handicap who'll win and who'll lose in the election as a result.

I could not care less about arguing guilt or innocence because that's immaterial. I'm only fucking with him in my responses there because, why not? I'll defend Idi Amin against a blowhard convicting prematurely. But what's material is if and how the Democrats can get someone to flip on Trump to make the case conclusively.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If they vote to impeach or not impeach, who gives a shit?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.

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.

There have been two impeachments, I believe: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The rules are do not have much precedent behind them to guide us as to interpretation. So assume in the absence of that, most of the Senate and House will apply standards similar to Fed Evidence rules and caselaw regarding how those are applied.

I think the standard applied (regardless of what technically is required) will effectively be not as high as crim, but not as low as civil. There's more than adequate grey area here, if this call is all the Democrats have, to justifiably acquit w/o appearing political.

The Democrats have just aimed the gun at the bear. Better kill him, because if he skates or pushes trial off until after the next election, this could blow up in the Democrats' faces.

It'll be interesting to see if Pelosi can slow walk this and drip out a bunch of lurid facts about Trump over the coming months. That could harm him. Ty's belief the Rs could ultimately disown Trump will only occur if they know there's such damning evidence that 1/3 of the Senate cannot acquit without looking nakedly political. That will require flipping an accomplice, or more transcripts of much better quality. That's possible. But appears unlikely at the moment.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There have been two impeachments, I believe: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The rules are do not have much precedent behind them to guide us as to interpretation. So assume in the absence of that, most of the Senate and House will apply standards similar to Fed Evidence rules and caselaw regarding how those are applied.

I think the standard applied (regardless of what technically is required) will effectively be not as high as crim, but not as low as civil. There's more than adequate grey area here, if this call is all the Democrats have, to justifiably acquit w/o appearing political.

The Democrats have just aimed the gun at the bear. Better kill him, because if he skates or pushes trial off until after the next election, this could blow up in the Democrats' faces.

It'll be interesting to see if Pelosi can slow walk this and drip out a bunch of lurid facts about Trump over the coming months. That could harm him. Ty's belief the Rs could ultimately disown Trump will only occur if they know there's such damning evidence that 1/3 of the Senate cannot acquit without looking nakedly political. That will require flipping an accomplice, or more transcripts of much better quality. That's possible. But appears unlikely at the moment.

Seb, Ty posted the rules, the CJ presides I think. And there is a strict timeline. At least we will get a trial.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Seb, Ty posted the rules, the CJ presides I think. And there is a strict timeline. At least we will get a trial.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Trump doesn’t even know what Trump wants from hour to hour. An anon CNN source knows?

The dude from the Times whom I cited seemed to articulate why he’d want to be impeached. But you’re right - that assumes a rational actor.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

What’s the timeline? I had to read court rules today twice. Last thing I’m doing is reading some con law rules.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

But the CJ runs it, yes?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What’s the timeline? I had to read court rules today twice. Last thing I’m doing is reading some con law rules.

I only read the first two paragraphs- it is immediate and the CJ presides.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I only read the first two paragraphs- it is immediate and the CN presides.

I think the rules suggest that "the Senate" can decide that it's not immediate, and as a practical matter this probably means that McConnell gets to decide.