Romney says 'increasingly likely' GOP senators will back witnesses at Trump trial after Bolton revel

Chomsky said:

Yes, it definitely is breaking news. He has a determinate vote in the proceedings. How can it not be breaking news?

Click to expand...

Also, washunut has never been to Utah, apparently.

trixare4kids said:

Probably both. There are no presidents anywhere that have been completely altruistic.

Click to expand...

That's fair. Obviously, all of this is open to interpretation.

At a rate, "criminal" intent is a hard thing to prove which is why legal scholars like Dershowitz destroyed the Democrats' claims yesterday while speaking to the Senate.

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. It may give Republican Senators a permission slip, but I doubt it will move public perception much at this point.

W_Heisenberg said:

Also, washunut has never been to Utah, apparently.

Click to expand...

In the last several hours, I think I sense a groundswell growing to at the least get the manuscript into the Senate prior to deciding upon witnesses.

Regardless of where this line goes, it is clear Bolton threw a massive monkey wrench into McConnel's plans. He wanted a a quick vote on witnesses and acquittal finished by this week, to give Trump a SOTU P.R. opportunity next week. He might not get it, or at least get it as easily.

Chomsky said:

In the last several hours, I think I sense a groundswell growing to at the least get the manuscript into the Senate prior to deciding upon witnesses.

Regardless of where this line goes, it is clear Bolton threw a massive monkey wrench into McConnel's plans. He wanted a a quick vote on witnesses and acquittal finished by this week, to give Trump a SOTU P.R. opportunity next week. He might not get it, or at least get it as easily.

Click to expand...

Prolly do a closed door session of Bolton and Mulvaney where each side can claim victory.

Chomsky said:

That's fair. Obviously, all of this is open to interpretation.

Maybe, maybe not. It may give Republican Senators a permission slip, but I doubt it will move public perception much at this point.

Click to expand...

Dershowitz destroyed nothing; the man is a public embarassment. Abuse of power is a clear impeachable offense. It just matters which party controls the presidency and the senate. Otherwise, it's all about the public.

The primary issue right now is you have a literal propaganda firm, fox news, that has managed to convince its consumer base that:

1. The democratic party and the MSM are one and the same. (Fox isn't the MSM)
2. The MSM cannot be trusted. (Fox is not the MSM, remember)
3. Democrats are extremists (Ignoring how blatantly extreme and insane the right wing has gone since 1995)
4. The our government works for a shadow government formed of democratic donors, and msm constituencies, and those that form their voter base.

The primary problem right now is this. There can be no bipartisan impeachment, not until this rift is healed, and frankly, it's not going to be. Red v Blue is here to stay and is only going to get worse; the senate is missing it's opportunity to heal this divide by doing two things:

1. Defending Trump by allowing evidence and testimony by the defense.
2. Empowering the prosecution, by allowing evidence and testimony.

Both sides should be able to present a full and complete picture. Trump has not exerted executive privilege, and given that he is openly tweeting about Bolton, I am pretty sure his privilege is waived and would be dismissed in court.

How can public opinion move one way or the other, if a continuous stream of evidence is coming out of this administration, and it's being denied from viewership by those watching this trial?

Further, the claim impeachment must be bipartisan completely ignores the reality I set out above. There are no country first folks in that room. It's all party protectionism; the right is blaming the left and vice versa.

If anyone here gives a damn about healing this divide evenly, they would support getting the full picture. If not, they are a petty partisan and should be dismissed as such.

Dershowitz's testimony is evidence of that fact. The right is insisting it was an amazing shredding of the D's argument, but it relies on ignoring the federalist papers and history of impeachment in common law.

It -is- an abuse of power to order political hits. It -is- an abuse of power to break the public's trust.

How can anyone trust the validity of -any- future election if the president is allowed to order political hit jobs, conditioned on apportioned bipartisan aid, from foreign powers? In either party?

Make no mistake; this precedent will fundamentally alter the power of the executive, in a way that exceeds any other event in history, from the war powers act, to congressional use of force authorizations, to executive orders, to targetted military strikes without congressional approval.

This country deserves to see all the evidence, and hear from the witnesses, before we take the plunge into that sort of sordid abyss. And just because the cons own the senate, history will not look kindly on them if they deny the public this opportunity.

Chomsky said:

They and Trump are fighting to keep witnesses and evidence out.

Click to expand...

That's not accurate. The house was able to submit all the witness testimony and other evidence they have collected. I'm not aware that any submission was blocked.

Some on both sides have stated opinion. House Democrats want to add a whole new slate of witnesses and document requests - something that would prolong the trial for months and is unreasonable. The middle of a trial is not the place to conduct discovery. Some Republicans have advocated rejecting any new witness testimony, or new witnesses - and that position is not reasonable either.

There is a specific mechanism for evaluating if additional witness testimony or evidence is needed - and we haven't gotten there yet. Nothing's been rejected. I'll bet that we'll end up with some witness testimony, likely including Bolton.

I don't think anyone really wants the Senate trial to last for months - certainly not the senators on either side of the isle. They want to bring this to a conclusion, and focus on the 2020 elections. House managers are putting on a theatrical performance.

Chomsky said:

Thing is, as long as the House didn't follow the full legal process to get witnesses like Bolton & Mulvaney, they have a "permission slip" to blame the Dems.

Click to expand...

One need not interview EVERY potential witness and/or review EVERY potentially relevant document during the investigation stage (is is sloppy not to do so, but it is NOT mandatory that it be done).

At the trial stage, the calling (and cross-examining) of witnesses and relevant documents is much more important.

Can you imagine how a court would treat a motion for dismissal based on the prosecution NOT tendering an alleged embezzler's bank records when the embezzler has simply refused to produce them and instructed his bank not to produce them either? The parallelism should be obvious.

dcsports said:

That's not accurate. The house was able to submit all the witness testimony and other evidence they have collected. I'm not aware that any submission was blocked.

Some on both sides have stated opinion. House Democrats want to add a whole new slate of witnesses and document requests - something that would prolong the trial for months and is unreasonable. The middle of a trial is not the place to conduct discovery. Some Republicans have advocated rejecting any new witness testimony, or new witnesses - and that position is not reasonable either.

There is a specific mechanism for evaluating if additional witness testimony or evidence is needed - and we haven't gotten there yet. Nothing's been rejected. I'll bet that we'll end up with some witness testimony, likely including Bolton.

I don't think anyone really wants the Senate trial to last for months - certainly not the senators on either side of the isle. They want to bring this to a conclusion, and focus on the 2020 elections. House managers are putting on a theatrical performance.

Click to expand...

Why shouldn't justice take as long as necessary. This is serious **** and having it rushed through the Senate will be, most certainly, an injustice.

WillyPete said:

The first part isn't illegal, though perhaps it should be. I doubt many reps on either side would back the idea. Good luck on that.

Trump did isn't illegal either.

The second part is a bit trickier, but ultimately, it doesn't make sense that Joe Biden would support removing Shokin.

A major reason several nations wanted Shokin gone was that he was sandbagging investigations, including the one into Burisma. Rather than a threat, Shokin was a benefit to a corrupt Biden. The investigation was "open" but no work was being done on it. That's a perfect situation for a corrupt Biden.

So by acting to remove him in favor of a less corrupt prosecutor (one that might actually want results from a Burisma investigation,) Biden was increasing the legal jeopardy for his son, and ultimately himself.

Why would Biden do that?

Click to expand...

LOL, I've heard that Shokin fable several times. It doesn't track that Biden would want a "more honest" prosecutor looking into Burshma and the nature of Hunter's "job". Seems like the only rational explanation is the reverse of your hypothesis - Biden was looking to tilt the field in Hunter's direction. They only explanation that makes sense is that Shokin was in danger of getting too close.

Chomsky said:

Actually, and easily obfuscated, is it all comes down to "intent". Was Trump acting in the country's interests? Or, in his personal interests? And yes, that is open to one's interpretation. Which is why this is a political process.

Click to expand...

So far all we have is some Presidential staff discussions, a short delay in delaying some of the aid, although I saw recently the Javelin missiles went as planned, and a Ukrainian president and foreign minister that were unaware the aid had been paused.

It's easy to say "it's all about Biden", but let's be serious; of all the current contenders I'd think Trump would WANT Biden, with his frequent "senior moments", delusional stories, AND his connection back to Obama. IMHO, Trump won at least in part because voters didn't want "Obama's third term".

Bullseye said:

LOL, I've heard that Shokin fable several times. It doesn't track that Biden would want a "more honest" prosecutor looking into Burshma and the nature of Hunter's "job". Seems like the only rational explanation is the reverse of your hypothesis - Biden was looking to tilt the field in Hunter's direction. They only explanation that makes sense is that Shokin was in danger of getting too close.

Click to expand...

There's the water, horse. Do your thing.

Chomsky said:

You seem to be projecting yourself on others. But regardless, an announcement of two of the four votes needed for witnesses is indeed newsworthy, as you can see around you.

Click to expand...

I would agree if it was two or four.especially Collins. I don't agree I am projecting myself. Most would agree that Romney is an an-Trumper. I have no problem with a busload of witnesses. Take the trial all the way to the conventions this summer.

Chomsky said:

They and Trump are fighting to keep witnesses and evidence out.

Click to expand...

Again, the only thing that they've 'fought' is the very unreasonable requests by Democrats I noted above. They specifically included a process to consider additional witnesses and evidence.

I'll add that in general - the Senate doesn't want new discovery in the senate trial - either side. This only extends the trial and the paralysis of our government. This is the same process used in the Clinton trial. The House was supposed to gather evidence - not ask the Senate to do it for them.

D_NATURED said:

Why shouldn't justice take as long as necessary. This is serious **** and having it rushed through the Senate will be, most certainly, an injustice.

Click to expand...

Because it paralyzes our government - tying up all three branches of government. The trial is for the House to present the evidence to support their case to the Senate - NOT to gather that evidence.

Note - if you want to point fingers for 'rushing', you should look to the House. Why didn't they pursue enforcement of subpoenas? Subpoena the witnesses they want now? Ask for the documents they are requesting now? And if they had 'everything they needed' to prove their case, why would they now need more discovery? It's a show.

Chomsky said:

In the last several hours, I think I sense a groundswell growing to at the least get the manuscript into the Senate prior to deciding upon witnesses.

Regardless of where this line goes, it is clear Bolton threw a massive monkey wrench into McConnel's plans. He wanted a a quick vote on witnesses and acquittal finished by this week, to give Trump a SOTU P.R. opportunity next week. He might not get it, or at least get it as easily.

Click to expand...

Moscow Mitch's orders from Trump were to gavel the trial shut on Saturday, before the Superbowl. Slam, Bam, Thank You Ma'am.

Good to see the Senate Majority Leader takes his oath seriously, to impartially seek truth and justice for the American person... and we all know which out of the 360 million of us that person is.

WillyPete said:

There's the water, horse. Do your thing.

Click to expand...

Piss in it? :lol:

TU Curmudgeon said:

One need not interview EVERY potential witness and/or review EVERY potentially relevant document during the investigation stage (is is sloppy not to do so, but it is NOT mandatory that it be done).

At the trial stage, the calling (and cross-examining) of witnesses and relevant documents is much more important.

Can you imagine how a court would treat a motion for dismissal based on the prosecution NOT tendering an alleged embezzler's bank records when the embezzler has simply refused to produce them and instructed his bank not to produce them either? The parallelism should be obvious.

Click to expand...

Again, we're at the TRIAL stage. The jury has been seated.

In your hypothetical case, if a prosecutor came to the judge and said 'I didn't get the records I wanted, or interview all the witnesses. I'd like to submit a new round of subpoenas, as well as a slate of witnesses that neither I nor the defense has deposed,' the judge would ask 'Then why did you say you were ready for trial?'

Either the judge would tell the prosecutor to press on with the evidence they had, or dismiss the case, and release the jury. The prosecutor would be lucky to have the case dismissed without prejudice, so he could bring the charges again.

dcsports said:

Again, the only thing that they've 'fought' is the very unreasonable requests by Democrats I noted above. They specifically included a process to consider additional witnesses and evidence.

I'll add that in general - the Senate doesn't want new discovery in the senate trial - either side. This only extends the trial and the paralysis of our government. This is the same process used in the Clinton trial. The House was supposed to gather evidence - not ask the Senate to do it for them.

Click to expand...

Uh no. The Clinton impeachment started with Ken Starr, not the House.

Michael Cole said:

Uh no. The Clinton impeachment started with Ken Starr, not the House.

Click to expand...

Started with.

The House is responsible for gathering the evidence and presenting their case. It does make a lot of sense to have an independent counsel do this work though. Perhaps they should have asked for another one.

dcsports said:

Started with.

The House is responsible for gathering the evidence and presenting their case. It does make a lot of sense to have an independent counsel do this work though. Perhaps they should have asked for another one.

Click to expand...

Barr refused. That's the point. The House had to do the work of a special prosecutor in addition to the duties you list.

Michael Cole said:

Barr refused. That's the point. The House had to do the work of a special prosecutor in addition to the duties you list.

Click to expand...

Barr refused what?

The House has the ability to seek enforcement of a subpoena when there's a disagreement, and they didn't complete that process. Why would it make sense to wait until the trial and re-start the process?

dcsports said:

Barr refused what?

The House has the ability to seek enforcement of a subpoena when there's a disagreement, and they didn't complete that process. Why would it make sense to wait until the trial and re-start the process?

Click to expand...

Barr refused to appoint a special prosecutor, hence my mention of Ken Starr.

If a SP were appointed, he would have done that work, relieving the House of those duties. Therefore, the House has reason to seek more evidence.

Michael Cole said:

Barr refused to appoint a special prosecutor, hence my mention of Ken Starr.

If a SP were appointed, he would have done that work, relieving the House of those duties. Therefore, the House has reason to seek more evidence.

Click to expand...

He did? I don't remember one being requested, and it certainly wasn't pushed. Of course, it's worth noting that they just had a special prosecutor for two years.

House Democrats chose to take this on - with zeal - before Mueller even finished his work. And again, if the House needed to seek more evidence, they had the opportunity to do so. They decided not to.

dcsports said:

He did? I don't remember one being requested, and it certainly wasn't pushed. Of course, it's worth noting that they just had a special prosecutor for two years.

House Democrats chose to take this on - with zeal - before Mueller even finished his work. And again, if the House needed to seek more evidence, they had the opportunity to do so. They decided not to.

Click to expand...

The whistleblower report was ignored by Barr.

dcsports said:

Because it paralyzes our government - tying up all three branches of government. The trial is for the House to present the evidence to support their case to the Senate - NOT to gather that evidence.

Note - if you want to point fingers for 'rushing', you should look to the House. Why didn't they pursue enforcement of subpoenas? Subpoena the witnesses they want now? Ask for the documents they are requesting now? And if they had 'everything they needed' to prove their case, why would they now need more discovery? It's a show.

Click to expand...

Because the president obstructed, per the second article, the senate must act.