Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 262: Witless Protection

(+) Yeah! (+)

LordoftheMorons posted...

They could have charged extortion/bribery (and maybe that would have even been more effective given public confusion), but that really underplays why what Trump did was so bad. If he was just extorting someone in his personal capacity it would be a lot less damaging to the country; the real damage here is in a) using the vast powers of the presidency to advance personal ends rather than public ends and b) in doing so, interfering in his re-election.

If he was extorting someone in his personal capacity that would probably not be impeachable. If he was extorting someone in his capacity as the President of the United States....well, then that looks like a serious problem. Extortion and bribery definitely sound a lot worse than "abuse of power."

Abuse of power could mean almost anything - and that is the crux of the Dershowitz argument - it's not so much that abuse of power as applied to Trump's actions are not impeachable, but that abuse of power could also be applied to other things which are definitely not impeachable. And it can be applied to those things because it is so vague. And it is so vague because there is no definition as to what it means. And there is no definition as to what it means because it is not a statutory crime and doesn't resemble an analogous statutory crime.

So the solution then, is for the charges to be dismissed, and if the House wants to try again and charge something more substantive, it can.

---

And it is settled, longstanding law, that a defendant can only be convicted for what has actually been charged. So if a defendant is charged with murder, and the evidence at trial shows no murder, but does prove the defendant committed shoplifting, the jury cannot return a verdict of guilty as to shoplifting. Because it was never charged! The prosecution has to set forth their theory before trial, when the charges are filed, and they cannot suddenly charge something new during the trial.

---

https://twitter.com/alexwagner/status/1222639487924219907

---

More evidence of the obvious fact that Trump is falsely claiming that info that is merely damaging to him is classified:

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1222654963559563264

---

https://twitter.com/Mike2020/status/1222324982786797568

---

what in the world makes the gop and the trump defense team think "If the House got to call witnesses how long would it take?" is a good question to ask themselves and that, "IT WOULD TAKE A LONG TIME! MONTHS!" is some winner for them?

oh no you'll have to do your jobs how terrible

gonna have to try to pull some of these arguments at jury duty next time

---

I don't fully understand how the process would work, but wouldn't any subpoena coming for the Senate trial be coming from the Chief Justice, who holds the highest court in the land and thus has the ultimate authority on the validity of it?

---

ZaziGuado posted...

I don't fully understand how the process would work, but wouldn't any subpoena coming for the Senate trial be coming from the Chief Justice, who holds the highest court in the land and thus has the ultimate authority on the validity of it?

Roberts would be signing the subpoenas yes, although I'm not sure what that would mean from a purely legal standpoint as opposed to a "normal" Congressional subpoena. But from a practical standpoint good fucking luck trying to fight a subpoena signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

---

So I feel like a lot of these gotcha style Twitter posts attacking arguments made by the Trump legal team out of context or praising points made by others (also out of context) show the problem with social media generally. People get an incredibly distorted view of the arguments being made because they are being shown little curated tidbits, presented with a heavy gloss of editorial bias by the person making the tweet.

It's not hard to make a nuanced argument look ridiculous by selectively choosing a 140-character window and omitting what comes before and after (and beyond that, the context provided by 800 years of precedent and legal theory in the US, UK, and England). But I feel like people on the left actually believe that these Twitter posts constitute effective refutations of arguments made by the Trump lawyers. And bad media outlets are happy to engage in the same kind of bad journalism, to a somewhat lesser extent than people on Twitter.

I think this is a serious problem that society needs to deal with. It's gotten quite serious because we're now at the point where actual intelligent people believe everything they read on Twitter without independent verification.

---

ZaziGuado posted...

I don't fully understand how the process would work, but wouldn't any subpoena coming for the Senate trial be coming from the Chief Justice, who holds the highest court in the land and thus has the ultimate authority on the validity of it?

Well, it would be coming from the Chief Justice in his capacity as presiding officer of the Senate, not as Chief Justice of the United States. But there's no appeal from the decisions of the Senate acting as a court of impeachment, so yes, I think if a majority of the senators say the subpoena is valid, then it is conclusively valid.

Enforcement is another question though - supposing the witness just refused to obey the subpoena, it's not clear how the Senate would enforce it. They would issue an arrest warrant, but who will enforce it? The President is in charge of law enforcement and would probably not be instructing law enforcement agencies to give high priority to the arrest warrant the Senate would issue for the witness.

---

I guess maybe that doesn't matter so much because the witnesses in question mostly are willing to testify if called. And the Senate can rule that Trump's assertions of executive privilege don't apply and the witness can feel free to disobey Trump on that. On the other side, I don't think Joe or Hunter Biden would refuse to comply with a subpoena from the Senate. That would be way too damaging for Joe's campaign.

---

wow i didn't know zazi could submit questions to the desk

Schiff calling out that whole BS line of argument was great.

---

Part of The Wall fell over into Mexico.

No, theres no metaphor there.

---

omg whitehouse (the senator) mvp

I noticed this bit of hypocrisy at the time but was resigned that he couldn't be called on it.

(Collins/Murkowski asked a question about what Trump knew, etc. and the Defense Team went "well we can only talk about things in the record so i can't speak to that" and then literally the next time they were up just started going off about news reports about BURISMA)

senator whitehouse with the callout question bringing that up and restating the collins/murkowski question

---

Good on Roberts for this at least:

https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1222695219562450944?s=21

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Part of The Wall fell over into Mexico.

No, theres no metaphor there.

the windmills struck back

---

What's wrong with the House managers? Senator Collins just asked them a very good question - she said that to her, it looked like the facts pled in the Articles of Impeachment would support charges of 2 separate statutory crimes, and asked if the House believed those crimes had been committed, and if so, why weren't they charged?

And the answer was that......President's Trump's actions were akin to a crime. He emphasized the word akin repeatedly. Akin? So he didn't commit a crime?

Well, if the House managers are asked straight up if President Trump committed a crime and they say no.....

---

they really up there arguing "even if you think the house has proven its case you shouldn't vote to convict because no republicans voted for it in the house!!!!!"

god that whole rant was filled with so much circular logic i'm getting dizzy thinking about it

---

Okay, Adam Schiff realized that Hakeem Jeffries screwed up and is trying to reanswer Senator Collins's question (why not charge an actual crime like bribery) now. But his answer still isn't very good. He says that the House could have charged bribery but chose not to because it's a lesser included offense within abuse of power. And if they charged both President Trump would have lawyers who would complain about that too.

Uh, no. Treason and Bribery are specifically named as impeachable crimes. They are not lesser included offenses within abuse of power. And prosecutors charge multiple counts for the same conduct all the time - that's always been allowed in America. You can charge murder 1st degree and murder 2nd degree - the jury can only convict for one of them but the prosecutor can certainly charge both. And if he believes murder 1st degree has happened he should charge both, or the jury might decide that it wasn't premeditated so it doesn't count as murder 1st degree but oh wait, now the defendant walks even though the jury would have convicted for 2nd degree because the prosecutor didn't charge it.

And seriously? The House didn't impeach for bribery because President Trump would have hired Jonathan Turley to criticize it? Well, this is definitely much better from Adam Schiff than Hakeem Jeffries's answer that President Trump didn't commit a crime at all, he did something "akin" to a crime, but it's still pretty bad.

---

So is Brexit really happening tomorrow or what

---

Another day, another split in Iowa polls between Biden and Sanders. But, I did see a poll out of Florida that has Biden 24 points over Bloomberg in Florida 41-17... With the next closest candidate in single digits.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

So is Brexit really happening tomorrow or what

in the sense that they're telling the EU they're leaving, yes.
but more specific details will be hammered out over the next year.

Corrik7 posted...

Another day, another split in Iowa polls between Biden and Sanders. But, I did see a poll out of Florida that has Biden 24 points over Bloomberg in Florida 41-17... With the next closest candidate in single digits.

Iowa really is going to come down to 2nd choices. Yang and Tulsi's are Bernie and both candidates are signaling as such. if Pete, Klobuchar, and Warren end up letting things fall wherever they may, they may end up split it 4 or 5 ways.

SC is the big one soon in terms of eye popping figures, though i'd love it if two failures in a row for Biden would weaken him enough for Yang to be a competitor down there.

---

Wanglicious posted...

if Pete, Klobuchar, and Warren end up letting things fall wherever they may, they may end up split it 4 or 5 ways.

I feel like a lot of these voters 2nd choices are gonna go to Biden so I'm not getting my hopes up for a Biden flop. Even if one of those 3 gets enough support to come in 3rd behind Bernie, Biden is going to be peeling votes from this group every time they're forced to switch candidates.

---

Yes, as of tomorrow, the UK will officially no longer be a member of the EU. That means that under EU law, if they were to rejoin in the future, they would not be able to get the exemptions they currently have, like not having to use the Euro, without the agreement of all the other nations. So it's a lot worse for Britain to rejoin than to remain, so effectively that means this debate is over and there is no going back.

Britain is free again.

---

Does this mean they get an Independence day now?

---

FFDragon posted...

Does this mean they get an Independence day now?

johnson was insinuating this in one of his speeches awhile ago!

---

oh man that was a dumb joke why is this always the darkest timeline

---

I think the US should encourage other countries to leave the EU by offering any former EU country who leaves the right to enter a common market with the US and the other countries that have left the EU. Then impose tariffs on the EU.

---

Also, our new trade block should have a condition - that member nations have to allow parts of their country that wish to leave the right to leave. So the UK and Spain are not welcome to join unless they allow Scotland and Catalonia free votes on leaving (it doesn't have to be a popular vote, if the Scottish or Catalan governments want to hold local elections to elect delegates to a constitutional convention, whether or not subject to confirmatory referendum, that's fine too).

---

---

I think Sleepy Joe is going to be the nominee. After he loses to Trump I hope the DNC will think about adopting winner-take-all primaries so that candidates like Biden and Hillary don't win the nomination by running up big margins across the South again.

---

Poll came out with Bernie at 30% in California.

Uh. spicy

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Truly the most important question

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

They should have also asked Trump supporters.
---

holy shit the defense literally just gave a fucking stump speech on the floor

"we passed the historic mca [sic] deal" "african american unemployment!" "tax cuts!"

and ending with a cultish "JOIN US. JOIN US."

---

xp1337 posted...

holy shit the defense literally just gave a fucking stump speech on the floor

"we passed the historic mca [sic] deal" "african american unemployment!" "tax cuts!"

and ending with a cultish "JOIN US. JOIN US."

Ill give that argument this: its not as bad as Dershowitzs

---

When Trump is acquitted Dershowitz is going to go down in history as the leading lawyer of our times. People will be learning about him in school in 100 years.

---

red sox 777 posted...

When Trump is acquitted Dershowitz is going to go down in history as the leading lawyer of our times. People will be learning about him in school in 100 years.

So you think the GOP would deify a pedophile?

Interesting

---

Actually, I have a question: has Alan Dershowitz ever defended anyone who was factually innocent

---

Meanwhile the House Managers literally answered Susan Collins's question asking whether Trump had committed an actual crime by saying no, then backtracking and saying yes, but they didn't charge it because it's a lesser included offense to something that is not a crime.

I know it's not fair to cherrypick 30 minutes out of 50 hours, but that was really really bad. Also I tuned in at random and that was what I heard so who knows, maybe they've been consistently this bad!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Actually, I have a question: has Alan Dershowitz ever defended anyone who was factually innocent

Alan Dershowitz is a constitutional lawyer. He deals with what laws mean, not what the facts are. I don't think he's said anything about whether Trump did anything, because that's not his job. His job is to explain whether XYZ acts would be legal if they were done.

---

I do admit impeachment has been useful for Bernie. MSM can't focus on his insane surge as much to knock it down.

Thanks, crazy Trump

---

Of course they'll be learning about Dershowitz in the future. One of the men who destroyed America? I just wonder what they'll call the country that rises from America's ashes.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I do admit impeachment has been useful for Bernie. MSM can't focus on his insane surge as much to knock it down.

Thanks, crazy Trump

Biden gets that extra campaigning due to Sanders and others being tired up in impeachment duties!

---

It might be the nihilism and pessimism setting in, but I've been bouncing around the idea in my head that since they're just going to acquit in a sham trial anyway - is it politiclaly advantageous to Democrats that they reject witnesses because it is just so obviously and transparently unfair to a point where even a layperson would be like "uhh that's not a fair trial at all that's just fucked up."? At the very least it would likely make the Senate races more feasible.

Like in the interest of trying to discover the truth and in a world where we had something even approaching a functional democracy witnesses and documents are obviously better but that ship has well and truly sailed away.

---

Ashethan posted...

I just wonder what they'll call the country that rises from America's ashes.

the new california republic

---

I think the GOP also believes that not calling witnesses looks bad even to a large portion of their base, but that it will still look less bad than whatever the witnesses would have to say.
---

xp1337 posted...

It might be the nihilism and pessimism setting in, but I've been bouncing around the idea in my head that since they're just going to acquit in a sham trial anyway - is it politiclaly advantageous to Democrats that they reject witnesses because it is just so obviously and transparently unfair to a point where even a layperson would be like "uhh that's not a fair trial at all that's just fucked up."? At the very least it would likely make the Senate races more feasible.

Like in the interest of trying to discover the truth and in a world where we had something even approaching a functional democracy witnesses and documents are obviously better but that ship has well and truly sailed away.

I think more likely than not yes, but it's not clear cut because they look awful either way and the more damning stuff Bolton et al say the worse they'll look for ultimately acquitting. People like Gardner apparently think it's in their political interest not to call witnesses, in any case.

---

It might be the nihilism and pessimism setting in, but I've been bouncing around the idea in my head that since they're just going to acquit in a sham trial anyway - is it politiclaly advantageous to Democrats that they reject witnesses because it is just so obviously and transparently unfair to a point where even a layperson would be like "uhh that's not a fair trial at all that's just f***ed up."? At the very least it would likely make the Senate races more feasible.

Figure that the preferred Republican talking point is "impeachment was a farce orchestrated by the opposition-controlled House". It seems that the Senate refusing to hear witnesses would support that angle. On the other hand, if e.g. John Bolton testifies under oath that Trump was using U.S. foreign policy for his own personal and political benefit, then the right-wing spin doctors may have to fall back to "Trump's actions are reprehensible, but no actual punishment is appropriate". And, hopefully, that gets some of the moral conservatives and undecideds to conclude that maybe someone who is acknowledged as corrupt by their own party doesn't deserve to remain in office.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

People like Gardner apparently think it's in their political interest not to call witnesses, in any case.

I think he's made the calculation that his only chance is to go full MAGA. But like... "good luck."

MalcolmMasher posted...

Figure that the preferred Republican talking point is "impeachment was a farce orchestrated by the opposition-controlled House". It seems that the Senate refusing to hear witnesses would support that angle. On the other hand, if e.g. John Bolton testifies under oath that Trump was using U.S. foreign policy for his own personal and political benefit, then the right-wing spin doctors may have to fall back to "Trump's actions are reprehensible, but no actual punishment is appropriate". And, hopefully, that gets some of the moral conservatives and undecideds to conclude that maybe someone who is acknowledged as corrupt by their own party doesn't deserve to remain in office.

Dobbs unirionically ran with a Bolton picture subtitled "Tool of the Left?" so like I don't think Bolton testifying against Trump would be some moral light in the darkness to a few wayward Republicans. Trump's strategy, and by extension the GOP's, is just "He's a liar! Disgruntled because he was a loser who got fired!" stuff and the base will fall into lockstep behind it.

And it's not like not calling Bolton means the Senate also cancelled his book, this stuff is going to come up out in a few months either way. They'll obviously call it all lies then too but they can have fun answering why they didn't take their opportunity to get him under oath.

---