Brilliant Idea from John Dean

It’s difficult to imagine why republicans would have a problem with Dean’s suggestion. The republicans’ star constitutional witness did after all testify that the impeachment investigation shouldn’t be conducted too quickly.

Bullseye said:

If the GOP retook the House because of the blowback from the impeachment I'd bet the new Speaker would make it job #1 to repeal the articles.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's for sure.

Stealers Wheel said:

Trump wants the impeachment to happen quickly, and here's why:

Right now, Trump has the votes in the senate to be acquitted. That's because every republican senator who is up for re-election still has to face their primary. They do not dare abandon Trump at this point.

However, if the process extends past several key primary dates, those senators, having won their primaries will be free to vote as they want. In fact, some may even feel that they will solidify their re-election prospects by voting to convict, but only after their primary.

At the moment Trump has all these senators by the short curlies. All he has to do is put the word out and his base will dump the incumbent for someone who vows to be loyal to Trump, regardless of anything else. But if it drags out beyond the primaries, Trump loses his control over these senators.

Click to expand...

The House first has to vote on, and pass, the articles of impeachment, and then they go to the Senate.

If your assumption is true, that "At the moment Trump has all these senators by the short curlies" why would the House be rushing to get the impeachment over to the Senate?

It would seem to be to the Democrat's advantage to stall it out in the house, allow the Democrat presidential candidates to campaign rather than sitting in the Senate impeachment hearings.
Assuming your premise is correct, the longer the House stalls, the less control Trump would have, the high the chances that the Senate would vote for impeachment.

trouble13 said:

That really is the truth too. They are not use to being put on the defensive like Trump is doing to them. They are use to the medias abuse of public trust being strong enough to persuade a large enough group to agree with them and conservative ideals get crushed by sycophant progressives in the Republican party that sell us out.

Trump isnt the one holding the power here. Trump was elected to be our sharp and poisonous tip of the spear. Trumps supporters are the ones who hold the power. Trump is just the right guy in the right place at the right time. Trump is a tool of the movement and he understands that.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Trump is also an imperfect messenger for those constituents, and those constituents 'get it' about Trump, and don't get apoplexy when he shoots his big NY mouth off. That is, in particular, one of the things that these constituents don't like about NYers.

The AntiDonald said:

I have heard it discussed that there is no constitutional requirement to pass it to the senate. It sure would be something unexpected. I say it's a great idea. Just stonewall Trump like he's stonewalling congress. It would totally drive him nuts. And that doesn't take much.

Click to expand...

There is no prohibition for the Senate on entering the articles onto the calendar of their own chamber and proceeding accordingly.

HumblePi said:

I think John Dean's idea is masterful.

View attachment 67269474

Click to expand...

Except that means the whole bogus impeachment issue is hanging over the Democrat's heads, not Trump's. And that will carry this into the election cycle, where it's a losing strategy.

Brilliant. I say go for it

HumblePi said:

If it could be proven to be a legal tactic then I'm for it. There's no obstructionism at all in holding up impeachment in the Senate by simply voting impeachment in the House and keeping it in the House without advancing it to the Senate. That would untie the hands of the House Intel Committee that have been totally stonewalled by Trump and other obstructionist Republicans that have been doing this sort of obstructionism for nearly three years.

Trump flat out stated he will not cooperate with the impeachment hearings. The White House refused to cooperate in the inquiry, blocking witness testimony and document turnover. Key individuals who refused to comply with the inquiry include Vice President Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought, and Rudy Giuliani.

Other White House officials who have also refused to testify include National Security Council lawyers John Eisenberg and Michael Ellis; Mulvaney adviser Robert Blair; and Brian McCormack, the associate director for natural resources, energy, and science at the Office of Management and Budget. Trump ordered these people to break the law by refusing to comply with Congressional subpoenas.

Additionally, the White House, the Office of the Vice President, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of State, the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy failed to produce any documents in response to “71 specific, individualized requests or demands for records in their possession, custody, or control.”

Did you advocate for that obstructionism? That's what obstruction looks like!

Click to expand...

Nothing you said contradicts that you are in fact an advocate for democrats to play the role of obstructionists for the purpose of satisifing a partisan political agenda.

You asked me a fair question at the end so i will attempt to answer it as honestly as possible. You asked if i am an obstructionist too based on how you framed it.

From your perspective yes i do advocate legal acts of obstruction. I believe everyone should excercise every legal avenue open to them to defend themselves from accusations. That includes but is not limited to not offering the accussers any voluntarily cooperation in making their case against their target.

I also believe congress should compell all the witnesses to testify and all the documentation they require to conduct a complete investigation.

What im saying is that I agree with Congress for asking. I also agree with the WHs refusals. I support Congress pressing charges against those refusals. We have courts to arbitrate these disputes. Thats where it should be played out.

Democrats only have themselves to blame for not making legal changes to the defiance to their authority. If they are unwilling to take that step then they have given the WH a free hand to not cooperate. What the WH is doing is legal until a court rules that it is not.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

jimbo said:

Except that means the whole bogus impeachment issue is hanging over the Democrat's heads, not Trump's. And that will carry this into the election cycle, where it's a losing strategy.

Brilliant. I say go for it

Click to expand...

It would mean that the stonewalling and obstructionism of the republicans would end since the House would have the leisure time to fight the refusals of subpoenas in a court and obtain the 98% of materials withheld given over to them and to have the dozen or more witnesses who broke the law by refusing a Congressional subpoena to be compelled to appear.

btthegreat said:

I have already talked about this in my own thread. The House votes to impeach and sends the articles thus fulfilling the full duties of the constitution. Trump is thus impeached. Now the Senate rules require House managers to play prosecutors and Trump's personal attorneys to defend him and those rules anticipate the selected managers presence and cooperation in this adversarial trial. The Senate rules have no provision for how to hold a trial if the House does not appoint any managers as prosecutors and send their 'team' to court. They cannot force anyone in either body to prosecute President Trump. Now the Senate must acquit or convict after a trial per the constititon, and it cannot either acquit or convict him if there is no trial, so the Senate must declare the impeachment trial , a mistrial. Trump is left in a sort of constitutional state of limbo without this sham trial with his allies pretending to be objective jurors and engaging in blatant jury nullification.
.

Click to expand...

Well I think a case can be made that since the actual Senate trial terms have to be negotiated between Schumer and McConnell, the House Dems could surely hold "your plan" over McConnell's head like a sword of Damocles so that he negotiates in good faith. If the two Senate Leaders can not come to an agreement terms for the Senate Trial are voted in the Senate.

Everybody has been acting like Impeachment in the House is a forgone conclusion. News reports are that the WH is already "whipping" Senate Republicans and strategizing with them as they are treating House Impeachment as a foregone conclusion.

I think there is far too much emphasis being put on DonDon's loony tunes version of what he thinks he is going to get in a Senate Trial, that being a boffo campaign messaging show featuring witnesses like Joe Biden. Hunter Biden, the Whistleblower, Pelosi and Schiff called with all sorts of restrictions on the Dems ability to respond. I don't think ANY of that is going to happen regardless of what DonDon wants or at least "says" he wants or thinks anybody is going to let happen.

Regardless of all the horse crap from Fox News and other Trumpian "news outlets" and in these pages, the House has run a solid process. McConnell does not want his Senate to come off like some Trumpian clown show and there are other Republican Senators that don't want that either.

The House would be on pretty thin ice purposefully denying the President his day at Trial. However, IMO, it was and is a strategically bad move on DonDon's part not sending his Attorneys to make a case for him in the Judiciary Committee of the House. That simply makes no sense. It simply propels forward the idea that Trump does not want the key witnesses the House has been calling for to appear because they not only won't help his case, but will hurt his case.

The larger problem is that DonDon does not have good attorney's. He has the dregs and he always has had the dregs for attorneys. That letter from Pat Cippolloni to Nadler was an embarrassment. It had all the markings of that pile of crap Trump sent to Erdogan. I suspect that Trump penned it and Pat signed it. However no attorney worth his salt should even have signed that mess to Nadler.

If I were DonDon, I would send the witnesses and send the attorneys. Since both the attorneys and the witnesses would be in DonDon's court. Try to swing it in the House. If that fails, Trump is no worse off. The WH is assuming that Impeachment is a foregone conclusion anyway. The worst he gets out of sending the Witnesses and the Attorneys is the same Impeachment everybody assumes is a foregone conclusion anyway and he would have gamed out his Senate Trial strategy in the House where you are not risking Removal.

The fly in that ointment is that DonDon can't just send the witnesses and his attorneys. He would have to send the documents as well and we don't know what is in those documents. It is likely that what is in the phone records and documents the House has demanded under Subpoena is worse for DonDon than even witness testimony from the likes of Mulvaney, Pompeo, Kupperman, Eisenberg, Esper etc etc etc. Actually Mulvaney is such a child, he would likely fold like a cheap suit giving testimony.

I know DonDon would not like the idea of sending the witnesses, documents and the attorneys because he wants to draw to an inside Royal Flush and hope he can convince some ridiculously obtuse segment of the Electorate that is is completely innocent. I don't think you could poll at numbers greater than 10% that think DonDon is completely innocent and I don't think there is any result in House or Senate that will elevate that number. That has been the flaw in DonDon's strategy from the start. He simply refuses to give his defenders any real tools to use to mount an effective defense insisting instead that they adopt his "everything was perfect defense".

trouble13 said:

Nothing you said contradicts that you are in fact an advocate for democrats to play the role of obstructionists for the purpose of satisifing a partisan political agenda.

You asked me a fair question at the end so i will attempt to answer it as honestly as possible. You asked if i am an obstructionist too based on how you framed it.

From your perspective yes i do advocate legal acts of obstruction. I believe everyone should excercise every legal avenue open to them to defend themselves from accusations. That includes but is not limited to not offering the accussers any voluntarily cooperation in making their case against their target.

I also believe congress should compell all the witnesses to testify and all the documentation they require to conduct a complete investigation.

What im saying is that I agree with Congress for asking. I also agree with the WHs refusals. I support Congress pressing charges against those refusals. We have courts to arbitrate these disputes. Thats where it should be played out.

Democrats only have themselves to blame for not making legal changes to the defiance to their authority. If they are unwilling to take that step then they have given the WH a free hand to not cooperate. What the WH is doing is legal until a court rules that it is not.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

The United States Constitution disagrees with your agreement that it's okay to obstruct a Congressional impeachment investigation. Witnesses can refuse to comply with a congressional subpoena only if they have a valid privilege protecting their testimony. White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s sent a letter to the House Intelligence Committee. His letter stated that the White House would not participate in the inquiry “under any circumstances.” But Pat Cipollone's letter did not assert any privilege. And without one, the refusal to engage the committee generates two federal obstruction of justice statutes.

From the U.S. Constitution:

First, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, provides that “[w]hoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede ... the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress” shall face criminal consequences. Second, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) broadly prohibits corruptly obstructing, influencing or impeding any “official proceeding”—defined to include a proceeding before Congress.

The White House is not going to participate with the upcoming impeachment hearings in the House. In a letter to Jerry Nadler, W.H. counsel Pat Cippolone claims, "Adopting articles of impeachment would be a reckless abuse of power by House Democrats, and would constitute the most unjust, highly partisan, and unconstitutional attempt at impeachment in our Nation's history."

That letter is nothing more than posturing. The republicans and Trump have no defense for any of the allegations, none at all. They can't defend against the charges so they do something they are good at doing. They attack the process as being 'illegal', they attack the chairmen of the committees, they attack the witnesses like Marie Yovanovitch and Fiona Hill and they attack anything they can find to attack. There's no defense, there's no proof of innocence and there's no witnesses that could testify in defense of Trump or any of the charges.

HumblePi said:

It would mean that the stonewalling and obstructionism of the republicans would end since the House would have the leisure time to fight the refusals of subpoenas in a court and obtain the 98% of materials withheld given over to them and to have the dozen or more witnesses who broke the law by refusing a Congressional subpoena to be compelled to appear.

Click to expand...

Is that seriously your best effort? If you've already impeached, there's nothing more to investigate.

Impeachment is a loser. The longer the Democrats push the issue, the bigger the loss.

HumblePi said:

I think John Dean's idea is masterful.

View attachment 67269474

Click to expand...

I don't think it's a good idea at all. While on the process side it may make sense, I don't think it's going to do anything to help on the PR side. If the intent is to have it be an albatross around Trump's neck, that can quickly backfire and actually serve the administration's narrative even further. The investigation's length should have been decided at the beginning of the process, but the Democrats decided on quick action rather than a drawn out approach.

Personally, I don't think the Democrats are going to get much more out of this. They conducted the investigation, we all heard testimony, and now it's with the House Judiciary Committee. If there's enough there to get it to the Senate, then that's where it should go, but I think everyone knew the outcome of that from the very beginning. What needed to turn up was incontrovertible evidence of wrong doing to make it iron clad when it got to the Senate. While in my opinion, something does stink, there hasn't been enough presented as the undeniable evidence that would force the GOP into a corner.

On a side note, what is being missed here by a mile, is a case being made by the Democrats on how any one of their candidates are going to maintain the economic gains we've been experiencing. If they don't make that case, they're going to lose. If they present a candidate who will ensure voters the economy will continue to prosper but they'll have less of the circus, it's a sound choice for voters to decide. Right now it's boiling down to economic status quo + circus, or expensive pie in the sky ideas that might hurt economic growth.

TurtleDude said:

which was not worse than what the MINORITY Dems did by preventing Miguel Estrada and Peter Keisler from getting a vote for their court of appeals nominations. It is doubtful Garland had the votes to be seated. Estrada and Keisler did.

Click to expand...

I don't care.....

ElChupacabra said:

I don't think it's a good idea at all. While on the process side it may make sense, I don't think it's going to do anything to help on the PR side. If the intent is to have it be an albatross around Trump's neck, that can quickly backfire and actually serve the administration's narrative even further. The investigation's length should have been decided at the beginning of the process, but the Democrats decided on quick action rather than a drawn out approach.

Personally, I don't think the Democrats are going to get much more out of this. They conducted the investigation, we all heard testimony, and now it's with the House Judiciary Committee. If there's enough there to get it to the Senate, then that's where it should go, but I think everyone knew the outcome of that from the very beginning. What needed to turn up was incontrovertible evidence of wrong doing to make it iron clad when it got to the Senate. While in my opinion, something does stink, there hasn't been enough presented as the undeniable evidence that would force the GOP into a corner.

On a side note, what is being missed here by a mile, is a case being made by the Democrats on how any one of their candidates are going to maintain the economic gains we've been experiencing. If they don't make that case, they're going to lose. If they present a candidate who will ensure voters the economy will continue to prosper but they'll have less of the circus, it's a sound choice for voters to decide. Right now it's boiling down to economic status quo + circus, or expensive pie in the sky ideas that might hurt economic growth.

Click to expand...

Oh yea...this is SOOOOO much better than the Obama economy. Ah-huh

The "bills" are just starting to come in for overzealous deregulation or haven't you noticed.

jnug said:

Oh yea...this is SOOOOO much better than the Obama economy. Ah-huh

The "bills" are just starting to come in for overzealous deregulation or haven't you noticed.

Click to expand...

It's as good as the perception of it is, and right now there isn't much to affect that perception. I think all of this is continued growth from the previous administration but bolstered by the confidence in Trump making it a more business friendly administration. The speculative market is precisely that, so how it perceives the likelihood of business operating unimpeded is going to help stocks. People like growth, but often don't think about what that growth costs over the long term.

HumblePi said:

I think John Dean's idea is masterful.

View attachment 67269474

Click to expand...

Brilliant and John Dean in a sentence.....not happening

HumblePi said:

The United States Constitution disagrees with your agreement that it's okay to obstruct a Congressional impeachment investigation. Witnesses can refuse to comply with a congressional subpoena only if they have a valid privilege protecting their testimony. White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s sent a letter to the House Intelligence Committee. His letter stated that the White House would not participate in the inquiry “under any circumstances.” But Pat Cipollone's letter did not assert any privilege. And without one, the refusal to engage the committee generates two federal obstruction of justice statutes.

From the U.S. Constitution:

First, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, provides that “[w]hoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede ... the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress” shall face criminal consequences. Second, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) broadly prohibits corruptly obstructing, influencing or impeding any “official proceeding”—defined to include a proceeding before Congress.

The White House is not going to participate with the upcoming impeachment hearings in the House. In a letter to Jerry Nadler, W.H. counsel Pat Cippolone claims, "Adopting articles of impeachment would be a reckless abuse of power by House Democrats, and would constitute the most unjust, highly partisan, and unconstitutional attempt at impeachment in our Nation's history."

That letter is nothing more than posturing. The republicans and Trump have no defense for any of the allegations, none at all. They can't defend against the charges so they do something they are good at doing. They attack the process as being 'illegal', they attack the chairmen of the committees, they attack the witnesses like Marie Yovanovitch and Fiona Hill and they attack anything they can find to attack. There's no defense, there's no proof of innocence and there's no witnesses that could testify in defense of Trump or any of the charges.

Click to expand...

I dont think there is any defense, evidence, or testimony you would accept. You convicted him as soon as the allegations were made. Now youre advocating to not allow him the opprotunity to present his unvarinished defense to the accusations. Instead you rather he live in a continous state of whack-a-mole accusations.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Trump said:

Brilliant and John Dean in a sentence.....not happening

Click to expand...

Sort of like John Durham's shocking, damning report of FBI sinister motives and egregious crimes, right?

ElChupacabra said:

I don't think it's a good idea at all. While on the process side it may make sense, I don't think it's going to do anything to help on the PR side. If the intent is to have it be an albatross around Trump's neck, that can quickly backfire and actually serve the administration's narrative even further. The investigation's length should have been decided at the beginning of the process, but the Democrats decided on quick action rather than a drawn out approach.

Personally, I don't think the Democrats are going to get much more out of this. They conducted the investigation, we all heard testimony, and now it's with the House Judiciary Committee. If there's enough there to get it to the Senate, then that's where it should go, but I think everyone knew the outcome of that from the very beginning. What needed to turn up was incontrovertible evidence of wrong doing to make it iron clad when it got to the Senate. While in my opinion, something does stink, there hasn't been enough presented as the undeniable evidence that would force the GOP into a corner.

On a side note, what is being missed here by a mile, is a case being made by the Democrats on how any one of their candidates are going to maintain the economic gains we've been experiencing. If they don't make that case, they're going to lose. If they present a candidate who will ensure voters the economy will continue to prosper but they'll have less of the circus, it's a sound choice for voters to decide. Right now it's boiling down to economic status quo + circus, or expensive pie in the sky ideas that might hurt economic growth.

Click to expand...

You nailed it. Democrats are their own worst enemy right now. They need to regroup and find a better attack.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

HumblePi said:

I think John Dean's idea is masterful.

View attachment 67269474

Click to expand...

Is anyone surprised that he said the Democrats should totally ignore the US Constitution and many Democrats think that is a brilliant plan?

No surprise. The Democratic Party thought is was a brilliant to go to war against the United States, killing more Americans than any other enemy in USA history before or since, for the purpose of creating their own slave nation.

The Democratic Party thought is was a brilliant idea to outlaw interracial marriages and force racial segregation.

The Democratic Party thought it was a brilliant idea to defy the US Supreme Court for the purpose of putting tens of thousands of Native Americans 1,000 mile long death marches as part of their brilliant plan to steal all their land.

The Democratic Party thought it was a brilliant idea to go to war in Vietnam based upon a Democratic Party lie, just like it was a brilliant plan to lie as basis to put the USA into World War 1.

The Democratic Party and lots of Democrats have brilliant plans of anarchy to trash the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to destroy, to oppress and enslave people and murder as many people as possible all the time from the first of its existence thru today.

The AntiDonald said:

Why is that? Because he told the truth against your other hero. Unbelievable. And no, I believe that honor belongs to William Barr.

Click to expand...

Told the truth? LOL

beefheart said:

I don't care.....

Click to expand...

of course you don't. Your posts demonstrate that whining about the Trump side is the only thing that matters.

j brown's body said:

Why such such strong, angry feelings?

Click to expand...

LOL a Trump hater complaining about angry feelings? say its not so, Joe

j brown's body said:

Your post supports the assertion that the GOP simply no longer represent democratic principles. To deny a president's Supreme Court nominee is virtually unheard of. To say that a perfectly moderate Democrat with no history of insane judicial ideas like Bork could not win enough votes is a clear condemnation of the Republican Party.

Click to expand...

what are you talking about-the Democrats prevented two men who had majority support in the senate from getting a hearing. Merrick was picked because he was a committed gun banner.

eohrnberger said:

The House first has to vote on, and pass, the articles of impeachment, and then they go to the Senate.

If your assumption is true, that "At the moment Trump has all these senators by the short curlies" why would the House be rushing to get the impeachment over to the Senate?

It would seem to be to the Democrat's advantage to stall it out in the house, allow the Democrat presidential candidates to campaign rather than sitting in the Senate impeachment hearings.
Assuming your premise is correct, the longer the House stalls, the less control Trump would have, the high the chances that the Senate would vote for impeachment.

Click to expand...

What is the point of your first statement? Did you suppose I didn't know the sequence? Anyway, thanks.

Apparently Trump doesn't think the dems are moving fast enough, that's why he tweeted

if you are going to impeach me, do it now, fast, so we can have a fair trial in the Senate, and so that our Country can get back to business.

Click to expand...

See? Gotta "do it now, fast" because apparently Trump realizes he is at risk of losing the support he currently has if there are primaries held before he is tried in the senate.

Imagine this: a GOP senator gets primaried, meaning he will finish out his term, knowing he won't be re-elected in November. At that point, Trump has no control over that lame duck senator. That can be very bad for Trump.

Look at all the senators who have announced their retirement who shortly after that began speaking critically of Trump. Once they no longer have to answer to Trump's base, they are suddenly a regular chatty cathy, telling anyone who will listen how they really feel about Trump.

The other scenario is that a GOP senator survives his primary and gets past Trump's base. Now they have to calculate which way the winds blow in the general election. If they figure voting to convict increases their chances of re-election, Trump is toast.

That is why Trump is desperate to get to the senate vote as quickly as possible, while he still has control of all GOP senators.