Impeachment

[Joe Fan]

This is pretty amazing, the Democrats are so afraid of Hunter Biden testifying that they would rather have no impeachment witnesses than risk the country hearing his testimony.

Transcript: Rep. Jerry Nalder on "Face the Nation" | Global News Archive

 

[bystander]

This is pretty amazing, the Democrats are so afraid of Hunter Biden testifying that they would rather have no impeachment witnesses than risk the country hearing his testimony.

Transcript: Rep. Jerry Nalder on "Face the Nation" | Global News Archive

"REP. NADLER: Well, I’m saying that Hunter Biden has no knowledge of the accusations against the president. Did the president, as we said- as the evidence shows that he did, betray his country by conspiring with a foreign country to- to try to rig the election? Hunter Biden has nothing to say about that. They’re- they’re asking for Hunter Biden is just more of a smear of Hunter Biden that the president’s trying to get the Ukraine to do. But the fact of the matter is, let the chief justice rule on- on–"

Now, I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV and I timidly ask questions of our resident lawyers here on Hornfans but it seems to me that Hunter's testimony is vital in order to prove that Trump wasn't engaging a foreign government at random to interfere in an election but instead because Hunter was that corrupt along with his Dad and it just so happened that the corruption occurred in Ukraine. If it could be proven that the corruption Trump was trying to uncover was in fact real then doesn't that mute Nadler's contention that Hunter was not a witness to Trump's "crimes" and therefore his testimony would be irrelevant?

 

[Mr. Deez]

"REP. NADLER: Well, I’m saying that Hunter Biden has no knowledge of the accusations against the president. Did the president, as we said- as the evidence shows that he did, betray his country by conspiring with a foreign country to- to try to rig the election? Hunter Biden has nothing to say about that. They’re- they’re asking for Hunter Biden is just more of a smear of Hunter Biden that the president’s trying to get the Ukraine to do. But the fact of the matter is, let the chief justice rule on- on–"

Now, I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV and I timidly ask questions of our resident lawyers here on Hornfans but it seems to me that Hunter's testimony is vital in order to prove that Trump wasn't engaging a foreign government at random to interfere in an election but instead because Hunter was that corrupt along with his Dad and it just so happened that the corruption occurred in Ukraine. If it could be proven that the corruption Trump was trying to uncover was in fact real then doesn't that mute Nadler's contention that Hunter was not a witness to Trump's "crimes" and therefore his testimony would be irrelevant?

The purpose of making this contention is to foreclose the argument that there is some set of facts that could justify Trump's activity. At least arguably, Biden could have been the dirtiest figure in the world, and Trump should still be removed just for looking into it the way he did.

Is he right? That sorta depends. If we were in court and Trump was being charged with a crime for which there was no legal defense or justification, then Nadler would be right. There would be no relevance to Biden's testimony. However, if we were in court, lots of things would be different. Trump would be off scot-free, because no one has charged him with a crime but instead has come up with a subjective, values-driven political offense. Well, in that realm, motivation and justification do matter, and that makes it much easier to justify calling Biden. Furthermore, 98 percent of the evidence held by the House would be excluded as hearsay and speculation. Virtually nobody had personal knowledge of anything material. The point is that Nadler wouldn't actually want us to do what a court would do.

Personally, when it comes to political operations, I err on the side of transparency. Accordingly, if I ran the Senate, after I ripped the House impeachment managers for their half-assed effort and failure to secure the evidence they needed and dumping their work on me, I'd subpoena John Bolton (for real - meaning I'd take him to court to enforce it), Mick Mulvaney, and others with knowledge of relevant facts. However, I'd open the evidentiary doors. That means both Bidens and the whistleblower as well as the unidentified persons on his report would be subpoenaed as well.

 

[Horn6721]

So the House Managers just spoke
Shifft opened by saying how this impeachment was not like Clinton's mentioned all the ways.
Then Nadler said we should not spend time talking about the Clinton impeachment.

Of course they are saying this since so many vids have surfaced showing the Dems poopooing back then the very steps the Senate is taking

 

[bystander]

So the House Managers just spoke
Shifft opened by saying how this impeachment was not like Clinton's mentioned all the ways.
Then Nadler said we should not spend time talking about the Clinton impeachment.

Of course they are saying this since so many vids have surfaced showing the Dems poopooing back then the very steps the Senate is taking

The arrogance of absolute power.

 

[OUBubba]

The Lindsey Graham and Dershowitz videos are classics.

 

[Joe Fan]

Anyone else watching Mitch at this moment?
Is he yet another secret HF lurker?
It sounded almost like he took parts of this post and read it into the official record.
With no credits!

I have been waiting to see if a motion to dismiss was going to be allowed, and it appears so. I wrote about this possibility several times above and still think its the best course at this time, even though it is not what Trump seeks and might even hurt him in terms of the upcoming election.

In real life, in civil cases, the way a motion to dismiss works in federal court is to say "even if we assume everything the plaintiff says is true and correct, plaintiff has still not stated a cause of action." These motions are made pre-discovery, that it to say just on the pleadings themselves, considering nothing else. Motions made during or after discovery are most commonly motions for summary judgement (they will include some of the discovery, external to the pleadings - which would, in turn, then involve the application of a different legal standard of review).

There are a few different ways motions to dismiss work - sometimes you cannot make any sense of what the plaintiff wants. Sometimes, there is no legal remedy for what plaintiff seeks (Example, "I want the sun to come out" - I saw that once. And everyone agreed but there was no legal remedy). Probably most often is that there is no statutory, constitutional or other legal support for the cause. You cant ask a court to do something a court lacks the power or jurisdiction to do. This is why the rules allow you the chance to get this resolved before going through the time and cost of discovery.

When granted, motions to dismiss are usually granted "without prejudice." Which means the complaint can be filed again. The court is telling the plaintiff, go back, cure the defects with your complaint, then file again. A motion to dismiss granted "with prejudice" means the same plaintiff cannot file the same case again. While this happens less frequently, it does happen and the grounds are too varying to go into (such as a "vexatious litigant" - someone who has already filed the same nonsense 100 times before).

In this matter, a motion to dismiss is the first thing the Trump side should do. It would be saying "even if everything the House Democrats are saying is true, they still have not stated grounds for removal from office under the Constitution." The Senate would then take the time to explain to the House Democrats what the defects are with their Articles and tell them it is being dismissed "without prejudice," which gives them the opportunity to go back, cure their defects and then refile.

The reason this motion should be made and granted is bigger than Trump. This procedure is going to be setting precedence for all who comes after Trump. And unless we want to see a repeat every single year of what Schiff was doing in his top secret SCIF, then the Senate needs to tell them what was wrong with it.

To me, the largest defects were the ones that made what they did unconstitutional. Manly the denial of due process. The denial of basic American legal rights. Here, Trump could not call his own witnesses. He did not have his own attorneys present. The Committee leader was allowed to instruct witness not to answer questions from the other side. The House Republicans were not allowed to fully cross-examine witnesses. The only people from the opposing side who were allowed to participate where those approved by the Committee leader --others who had a right to participate and who sought to participate, were denied that opportunity. The Committee leader was also allowed to hide the testimony of witnesses from subsequent public witnesses, the full House and even their bosses (the people) -- this should never happen and alone is enough to make the whole thing defective. The president was never allowed to confront his accuser, was not allowed to depose him and indeed was never even allowed to know his identity (a direct violation of the 6th Amendment). All this is just off the top of my head, there are other grounds.

And so it is important to set some rules for this. Make it public. Say it on live TV, under oath, and then put it in writing, in simple terms for everyone to see. So, yes, the Senate should say these Articles are too legally defective for it to consider at this time and here is why. They should take the time to explain that the procedure of the House Desm was defective, that what they did was not legally sufficient under the American system of justice. They should also say they are dismissing the Articles "without prejudice" and will reconsider the case if the House goes back and cures it. And then actually tell them, "here is what you need to do to fix it." IMO, it's very important that the Senate make clear the process itself must be fair to everyone. Even Trump, and for all presidents after him.

Procedurally in the Senate, the way I would go would be that once the Senate is called to order, the House Dems state their case, but then before anything else goes forward, before the House Rs or the President responds, before any witnesses, the motion to dismiss is made.

 

[Horn6721]

Dems are ranting about witnesses and that some of this will be in the "dark of night"( if we made a drinking game of that phrase we would have been drunk by 8:30 this morning)
Why did the Dems not allow the GOP to have witnesses? Why did much of their investigation take place in a windowless room in the basement where it was always the dark of night?

 

[Phil Elliott]

They said they did not need further witnesses in the House because the evidence was already overwhelming. Now they say we need more evidence or it's a coverup. Please God kill them all with fire.

 

[OUBubba]

They said they did not need further witnesses in the House because the evidence was already overwhelming. Now they say we need more evidence or it's a coverup. Please God kill them all with fire.

So we don't want to know what actually transpired? Got it.

 

[horninchicago]

They said they did not need further witnesses in the House because the evidence was already overwhelming. Now they say we need more evidence or it's a coverup. Please God kill them all with fire.

So we don't want to know what actually transpired? Got it.

Mobilehoma reading comprehension issues? But to answer your rhetoric, yes, the Dems don't want to find out. They are not in charge now. When they were, in the House, they did not seek out and call more witnesses. Thus, THEY did not want to know what actually transpired.

 

[OUBubba]

Mobilehoma reading comprehension issues? But to answer your rhetoric, yes, the Dems don't want to find out. They are not in charge now. When they were, in the House, they did not seek out and call more witnesses. Thus, THEY did not want to know what actually transpired.

You people just don't get it. The President is withholding all of the key players testimony. If it went to court he has the Court in his pocket. He could literally gun down someone and escape any punishment.

 

[horninchicago]

You people just don't get it. The President is withholding all of the key players testimony. If it went to court he has the Court in his pocket. He could literally gun down someone and escape any punishment.

You people? Tisk, tisk...

Executive Branch has the right to have subpoenas etc challenged in the courts. They don't have to, nor has any Administration, bend over to the likes of Shifty.

 

[WorsterMan]

So we don't want to know what actually transpired? Got it.

Evidently, because the House led Dems didn't do their job by letting the Republicans question / cross exanine their "witnesses" and or even admit even 1 witness they chose. Impeachment = the House investigates and makes a case. The Senate conducts a trial & acts as jury based on the evidence.

The House's job was to fully and properly investigate the entire case, not rely on the Senate to re-investigate it by calling witnesses & requesting evidence because the House didn't allow them or fully investigate.

Now the Senate believes they are compelled to call witnesses and re-investigate the whole damn case so Nadler, Schitt show and the Dems don't yell cover up, cover up!!

Got it.

 

[bystander]

You people just don't get it. The President is withholding all of the key players testimony. If it went to court he has the Court in his pocket. He could literally gun down someone and escape any punishment.

So when Nadler say's no Biden testimony you say the President is withholding witnesses. So what can we do about everyone's blind spot?

 

[bystander]

Anybody buy this or is it too simplistic?

 

[Joe Fan]

You people just don't get it. The President is withholding all of the key players testimony. If it went to court he has the Court in his pocket. He could literally gun down someone and escape any punishment.

In case anyone was wondering what Chuckles Schumer was talking about and why he seemed so desperate to bring in witness and evidence extraneous to what is in the official House record, it is two things --

(1) First, he knows the Articles as submitted as too weak to carry the day. In no way have they stated a case for removal from office. They all know this. They rushed it, submitted an incomplete record and then sat on it for 4 weeks despite making claims such as "clear and present danger." This mess is 100% on the House Dems,
and
(2) Second, he also already knows the are going to lose at the Senate and so is trying to set up the spin for the loss. They will, ironically enough, allege unfairness and a lack of due process. It's how they roll.​

 

[Horn6721]

oububba?
is what Worsterman said not accurate?
"The House's job was to fully and properly investigate the entire case, not rely on the Senate to re-investigate it by calling witnesses because the House didn't allow them.

 

[bystander]

oububba?
is what Worsterman said not accurate?
"The House's job was to fully and properly investigate the entire case, not rely on the Senate to re-investigate it by calling witnesses because the House didn't allow them.

I guess I'm confused. Assuming the House is the grand jury and the Senate is the trial court, why would the Senate be bound by the witnesses the House either did or didn't call? Are we saying, too bad, your case is what it is and nothing new can be added?

 

[theiioftx]

Pesky due process under the constitution. Dems hate it.

 

[Mr. Deez]

You people just don't get it. The President is withholding all of the key players testimony. If it went to court he has the Court in his pocket. He could literally gun down someone and escape any punishment.

What dumbass on CNN or MSNBC started this ********* narrative? Do people not know how to read or do basic math?

If Democrats actually did their jobs and took claims of executive privilege (which aren't at all unusual, aren't unconstitutional, and aren't an obstruction of Congress) to court they'd go to the US District Court for the District of Columbia. That court has 15 sitting judges. Eleven are Democratic appointees. If claims are appealed, they'd go to the DC Circuit. That court has 11 sitting judges. Seven of them are Democratic appointees. So Trump would be at a disadvantage in both courts.

What about the Supreme Court? You've got three conservative justices that would very likely rule with Trump. You've got four liberal justices who would never rule with Trump. You have two conservative-leaning (but less conservative than the other conservatives) justices. One hasn't been on the Court long enough to know what he'd do. The other has proven that he's the least partisan justice on the Court and not particularly favorable to Trump. So how would Trump do in the Supreme Court? It would depend on the Chief Justice, who has shown himself to be fair.

So please stop with this "we can't go to court because Trump has the courts in his pocket" ********. It's beneath you and factually wrong.

 

[Joe Fan]

1999 Chuckles

 

[mchammer]

How the coup started:

https://www.realclearinvestigations...ing_with_ally_how_to_remove_trump_121701.html

 

[Joe Fan]

How the coup started:
https://www.realclearinvestigations...ing_with_ally_how_to_remove_trump_121701.html

I dont see how we can get through this entire procedure just bypassing the 6th Amendment as if it does not exist. I was always hoping they would put Roberts on the spot for issues such as this, but apparently all he is going to do is just sit there.

Besides the inability to confront the witness against him, the Dems are also arguing --

- Trump should not be able to have his attorney represent him (a very cheap trick)

- If you go to court to challenge something, guilt can then be assumed

- If you defend yourself, you are guilty
​

 

[Joe Fan]

We almost need a new reality show called "Keeping Up With the Bidens"
The Ark judge has ruled Hunter Biden's name must be added to the birth certificate of the child he had with his ex-stripper associate.
Hunter Biden is 'biological and legal father' of Arkansas woman's child, judge rules

The Ark judge is not taking any cap off Hunter -- issued a Show Cause order for him to appear. Which means a contempt charge is possible
Appear in Arkansas court, explain, judge orders Hunter Biden

 

[WorsterMan]

I guess I'm confused. Assuming the House is the grand jury and the Senate is the trial court, why would the Senate be bound by the witnesses the House either did or didn't call? Are we saying, too bad, your case is what it is and nothing new can be added?

So I'm accused of a crime.

A prosecuting attorney(s) are chosen.

Prosecution investigates me & the alleged crime - gathers evidence & witnesses and brings charges against me (HOUSE OF REPS). I get a defense attorney. We go to trial. A jury is chosen.

The Prosecution only gets to bring his or her witnesses and the Defense is NOT allowed to bring witnesses, question / cross examine the Prosecution witnesses or question the evidence presented.

After the Prosecution makes it's case to the Judge, it turns to the Jury (SENATE) and says: Jury, we want YOU to further investigate, call witnesses we choose and provide further evidence we request.

"Are we saying, too bad, your case is what it is and nothing new can be added?" Yes. IMHO.

In any trial, there always could be some new element of evidence that was not discovered or didn't present itself during the initial investigation / fact gathering.

However, it is NOT the job of the Jury (SEANTE) to further investigate me or finish the job of a flimsy case presented by my Prosecutors (HOUSE OF REPS) !!!

 

[OUBubba]

So I'm accused of a crime.

A prosecuting attorney(s) are chosen.

Prosecution investigates me & the alleged crime - gathers evidence & witnesses and brings charges against me (HOUSE OF REPS). I get a defense attorney. We go to trial. A jury is chosen.

The Prosecution only gets to bring his or her witnesses and the Defense is NOT allowed to bring witnesses, question / cross examine the Prosecution witnesses or question the evidence presented.

After the Prosecution makes it's case to the Judge, it turns to the Jury (SENATE) and says Jury, we want YOU to call witnesses we choose and provide further evidence we choose.

"Are we saying, too bad, your case is what it is and nothing new can be added?"

In any trial, there always could be some new element of evidence that was not discovered or that presented itself during the initial investigation / fact gathering.

However, it is NOT the job of the jury to further investigate me or finish the job of a flimsy case presented by my Prosecutors !!!

I interpret it as if the House is serving like the grand jury and the Senate is performing the trial. That's how all other impeachments have gone. There were witnesses. Can prosecutors/defense attorneys call witnesses that were not involved during the preliminary hearings in a normal trial setting?

 

[WorsterMan]

House - investigate, call witnesses, gather evidence & make a / the case.
Senate - Judge & Jury.

In the Senate impeachment trial, Clinton was not re-investigated, additional evidence was not requested / collected nor were additional witnesses called.

 

[OUBubba]

House - investigate, call witnesses, gather evidence & make a / the case.
Senate - Judge & Jury.

In the Senate impeachment trial, Clinton was not re-investigated, additional evidence was not requested / collected nor were additional witnesses called.

The History Place - Impeachment: Bill Clinton

Seems we had 3 days of closed door depositions in the Senate at the time. How is that not what you speak of?

 

[Monahorns]

So if Republicans have 3 days of closed door depositions and then vote to keep Trump in office you would be satisfied?