I give in. As long as I can keep these brief--because everyone and their brother is commenting about Schiff's absurd Impeachment Theater--I'll provide updates if the news seems noteworthy.
First off, when Jeffrey Toobin, liberal legal gadfly, thinks the Dems have a problem, I think you can take that to the bank:
Adam Schiff has lost CNN:— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) November 13, 2019
CNN’s Toobin: neither witness “had direct contact with the president…that’s a problem” pic.twitter.com/4mpgk6fDhS
It sounds like Bill Taylor, the former ambassador, put everyone to sleep right off the bat by delivering a 41 MINUTE opening statement. The idea behind it, as far as could be discerned, seemed to be that Trump is disrespecting the career foreign service by not doing their bidding--so ... he needs to be impeached?
But more interesting is that Mitch McConnell repeated today that if the House sends the Senate articles of impeachment there will be a big ass long trial. Of course McConnell saying this doesn't commit him to a thing, but you may recall that a full scale trial was one of the two approaches that Hugh Hewitt favored: What's The Principled Way For The Senate To Handle An "Impeachment".
McConnell has in the past said that in the case of an impeachment there would be a trial. At that time I suggested this might be be a warning shot across the Dem bow. You might think a Senate trial would be all about Trump, but I'm not sure you should bet on that. We might well find an inordinate amount of time--weeks, in fact--devoted to a defense centered around the Bidens, father and son, and the need to investigate their corrupt dealings. The Bidens might well be called to testify, and then we might be treated to the spectacle of a presidential aspirant and his son both taking the Fifth. If the Dems really prefer Biden as a candidate to Warren, Sanders, or Alfred E. Neumann--or, God help us, Hillary!--they might want to reconsider impeachment altogether. And that may be the message McConnell is sending.
We've seen the Dem case, and it's pathetic. But impeachment could well turn into a sword that cuts both ways, and most decidedly more in one direction than the other.
To finish up, here's what seems to me a very well informed interview--Jack Posobiec talking to former CIA officer Brad Johnson:
They can't hide Ciaramella from the Senate. They'll track him down in the wilds of Dupont Circle and put him up before the country.
UPDATE: WaPo seems to agree with me on McConnell's strategery (from FR):
Republicans discuss a longer Senate impeachment trial to scramble Democratic primaries
Washington Post ^ | Nov 13, 2019 | By Robert Costa, Michael Scherer and Seung Min Kim
Some Republican senators and their advisers are privately discussing whether to pressure GOP leaders to stage a lengthy impeachment trial beginning in January to scramble the Democratic presidential race — potentially keeping six contenders in Washington until the eve of the Iowa caucuses or longer.
Those conversations about the timing and framework for a trial remain fluid and closely held, according to more than a dozen participants in the discussions. But the deliberations come as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) faces pressure from conservative activists to swat back at Democrats as public impeachment hearings began this week in the House...
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
You're like the prophet in Jeremiah 20:9.
ReplyDelete"But if I say, "I will not mention his word or speak anymore in his name," his word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot.
That's true--never have been able to keep my mouth shut.
DeleteEric Ciaramella!!!!! Come and get me Schiffhead.
DeleteTaylor and Kent never talked to the President, but they did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't that have been great if they'd stayed at a Trump hotel?
DeleteRather have them stay at the Bates Motel.
DeleteThen, as they are executive branch employees, Pencil Neck could invoke the emoluments clause and impeach the President on that count.
ReplyDeleteCurrently enjoying Will Chamberblain. I love his snarky commentary.
Unfortunately, McConnell gave the democraes veto power over subpenaes. I always thought that the defense was handle by the president's lawyers. They would subpenea witnesses and democrats have no say. I thought the Senate was the jury.
ReplyDeleteI listened to Joe diG in that regard today. It all seemed beyond stupid--how could 53 GOPer senators with staff and lawyers be that dumb? However, I then saw comment 16 at this:
Deletehttps://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3793540/posts
"House rules and Senate rules are two different creatures, institutionally and culturally. All 435 members of the House are elected every two years. The House reconstitutes itself and adopts its rules every two years. On the Senate side, however, only one third of Senators stand for election each cycle. Two thirds carry over. The Senate therefore regards itself as a continuing body whose rules, originally written by Thomas Jefferson, carry forward automatically without being readopted every two years. Over 200 years, this has given rise to a very different institutional culture surrounding the rules and potential changes to the rules. It is why, for example, the Senate typically proceeds by unanimous consent on procedural matters. That doesn't mean that Senate rules can't be changed. It does mean that there is no automatic, built-in point at the beginning of each session at which rules changes are in order. Mitch McConnell can't just snap his fingers and order up a new rule. The cultural barrier to rules changes is much higher in the Senate. "