Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

[BlueK]

There's at least three arguments that I've heard:

1. It's the House's burden to come forward with evidence to support their case. They had a chance to pursue Bolton's testimony prior to impeaching the President, but chose not to. It's not the Senate's job to do what the House decided not to do, especially when the House felt it was too much of a burden.

The House asked John Bolton to testify on November 7th. Bolton said he would not go unless there was a subpoena AND only after it went through the courts. So not true they didn't want him to come. You can argue they didn't push hard enough through the court system, but then the Trumpists would have just said the Dems were trying to drag it out.

[Uncle Ted]

There's at least three arguments that I've heard:

1. It's the House's burden to come forward with evidence to support their case. They had a chance to pursue Bolton's testimony prior to impeaching the President, but chose not to. It's not the Senate's job to do what the House decided not to do, especially when the House felt it was too much of a burden.

2. Even if everything the House alleges in the impeachment articles were assumed to be true, it wouldn't be sufficient for impeachment. Thus, there is no need to hear further testimony and witnesses to prove allegations that aren't sufficient to begin with. This argument is similar to an argument that would be made in court in a motion to dismiss. In such situations, the judge assumes all the plaintiff's claims are true and has to decide whether they amount to a valid claim or crime. If not, the case will be dismissed before trial and before any witnesses are called or evidence is submitted.

3. If we allow any witnesses, the process will get mired down and drug out for months and months and we want to get this wrapped up (especially since everyone knows the outcome is inevitable and there is an election coming up). This argument is bolstered by Trump's attorneys suggesting they will go to Court to try and block Bolton's testimony if a subpoena is issued. Another version of this argument is that if we allow this impeachment trial to get bogged down for months while subpoenas are issued and witness testimony is pursued, it will set a terrible precedent for future impeachment trials.

I think all of the arguments have some merit, but none are completely persuasive. The analogies of an impeachment trial to a civil or criminal trial before the judiciary are overblown in my opinion. At the end of the day, there is no real binding precedent one way or the other. If the Senate wants to know what Bolton has to say, they can subpoena him. If not, there's nothing compelling them to. Politically, it seems like a no brainer to get Bolton's testimony, unless it is going to take months before it happens. The court battle is what deterred the House from pursuing it. I don't see how the same concerns wouldn't justify the Senate making the same decision.

At the end of the day, this whole thing is a partisan joke. I think everyone would be better off it were put to bed as quickly as possible.

You forgot we already heard from Bolton concerning the Drumpf/Zelensky phone calls... he said they were "very warm and cordial calls":

Of course this is before Drumpf fired Bolton for being such a warmonger...

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Rather than wasting the senate's time they should just wait until his book actually does comes out. If the book is interesting then the house can subpoena him (it will no longer be executive privilege, right?), take him down to their secret interrogation room, water board him under some bright lights and loud acid rock music and make him talk!

[Uncle Ted]

Somebody help me understand the argument against hearing from Bolton. I don't get it.

Who wants to hear from Bolton? His music sucks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UVACoug]

Somebody help me understand the argument against hearing from Bolton. I don't get it.

There's at least three arguments that I've heard:

1. It's the House's burden to come forward with evidence to support their case. They had a chance to pursue Bolton's testimony prior to impeaching the President, but chose not to. It's not the Senate's job to do what the House decided not to do, especially when the House felt it was too much of a burden.

2. Even if everything the House alleges in the impeachment articles were assumed to be true, it wouldn't be sufficient for impeachment. Thus, there is no need to hear further testimony and witnesses to prove allegations that aren't sufficient to begin with. This argument is similar to an argument that would be made in court in a motion to dismiss. In such situations, the judge assumes all the plaintiff's claims are true and has to decide whether they amount to a valid claim or crime. If not, the case will be dismissed before trial and before any witnesses are called or evidence is submitted.

3. If we allow any witnesses, the process will get mired down and drug out for months and months and we want to get this wrapped up (especially since everyone knows the outcome is inevitable and there is an election coming up). This argument is bolstered by Trump's attorneys suggesting they will go to Court to try and block Bolton's testimony if a subpoena is issued. Another version of this argument is that if we allow this impeachment trial to get bogged down for months while subpoenas are issued and witness testimony is pursued, it will set a terrible precedent for future impeachment trials.

I think all of the arguments have some merit, but none are completely persuasive. The analogies of an impeachment trial to a civil or criminal trial before the judiciary are overblown in my opinion. At the end of the day, there is no real binding precedent one way or the other. If the Senate wants to know what Bolton has to say, they can subpoena him. If not, there's nothing compelling them to. Politically, it seems like a no brainer to get Bolton's testimony, unless it is going to take months before it happens. The court battle is what deterred the House from pursuing it. I don't see how the same concerns wouldn't justify the Senate making the same decision.

At the end of the day, this whole thing is a partisan joke. I think everyone would be better off it were put to bed as quickly as possible.

[falafel]

Ummm, he'll make Trump look bad?

That's about it.