How The House Lost The Witnesses Along With The Impeachment

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the continued effort to ignore the obvious and catastrophic decision of the House leadership to rush the impeachment vote by Christmas rather than complete the record against President Donald Trump. This denial continues despite the fact that, after saying that they had no time to seek witnesses or favorable court orders, the House leadership then waited a month before released the articles of impeachment. Clearly, the record would have been stronger if the House waited and sought to compel witnesses. It also would have kept control of the record and the case. I encouraged them to vote in March or April, which would have given them plenty of time to secure additional testimony and certainly a number of favorable court orders. However, recognizing this obvious blunder would take away from the narrative that the case failed only because the Republicans were protecting Trump in the Senate.

Here is the column:

NBC host Chuck Todd recently asked guests on his show if supporters of President Trump just want to be lied to. It is a question that many in the media would never ask about Democrats, even in the face of overtly false claims. This week is an example. After the Senate rejected witnesses and effectively ended the impeachment trial on Friday, the media ignored the primary reason for the defeat, which is the insistence of House leaders to impeach Trump by Christmas. Critics of the president simply do not want to hear that the blind rush to impeach guaranteed not only an acquittal but an easy case for acquittal. It is after all important for some members of the media to maintain that fools dwell only in Republican red states.

When I appeared before the House Judiciary Committee in November, I opposed four proposed articles of impeachment as legally flawed and explained that two would be legitimate if they were proven. The House Judiciary Committee rejected the challenged articles and accepted the two articles on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. That left one fundamental area of disagreement. I warned the panel that it was rushing to a failed impeachment by insisting on a vote by Christmas. This was the shortest impeachment investigation in American history. It was also the narrowest grounds and thinnest record for trial. I have previously noted that witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton indicated that they were willing to testify if subpoenaed, and that a couple months would have likely secured more testimony and supportive court orders.

Indeed, in the impeachment case of President Nixon, it took only a few months to go all the way to the Supreme Court for the final decision. So absent such a delay, the impeachment of Trump was guaranteed to fail, due to an incomplete and insufficient record. Yet the House insisted this was a “crime in progress” and there was no time to delay a submission to the Senate. It then immediately contradicted its rationale by waiting more than a month to submit articles of impeachment to the Senate. The House simply could not have made it easier on the president and his legal team.

The media ignored the obvious catastrophic blunder by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership. The media instead suggested that it was all some grand and brilliant scheme. They even credited the strategy with Bolton eventually coming forward to say he would testify with a subpoena, even though the same offer was made during the House investigation. The media also ignored the unexplained decision by the House to withdraw a subpoena for top Bolton aide Charles Kupperman, who went to court as a prerequisite for testimony, the same position taken by Bolton. Before the courts could even rule, the House mooted the case by withdrawing the subpoena. That made no sense, and the court dismissed the case after concluding that the House appeared to have no interest in the witness.

No harm would have come from pursuing testimony by Kupperman. Yet lead House manager Adam Schiff offered a facially dubious explanation that Kupperman had said he would litigate the issue. If Kupperman truly wanted to drag out litigation, he could have refused to appear before the House and waited for it to seek to compel his testimony. Instead, he said he just wanted a court order in favor of testifying for his own protection. Moreover, House Democrats continued to seek to compel the testimony of former White House counsel Donald McGahn, despite his continued litigation. It won that case as the House was voting on impeachment.

As these blunders by the House became more and more obvious, all the efforts to excuse them became more and more absurd. One main defense heard in the media was that it did not matter, given the Senate Republican majority. Yet if the House was certain to lose on that record, why end the investigation prematurely with a case that would be so easy to defeat? By waiting only a few months, the record would have been stronger. Instead, House Democrats surrendered control of the record to the opposing party and adopted a ridiculous strategy of demanding concessions to end with this trial that Senate Republicans loathed. That strategy failed miserably.

This is not Monday morning quarterbacking. This very series of events was expressly laid out before the vote, and House Democrats made a decision to choose certain failure over completing their impeachment case. There was no reason to expect Senate Republicans to assist House managers in making their case, particularly in calling witnesses not subpoenaed by the House. Democrats had opposed any witnesses in the impeachment trial of President Clinton and voted as a bloc for a summary acquittal. There was no reason to expect Republicans to adopt an entirely different approach.

We will never know how this impeachment trial would have unfolded if the House had waited to secure additional testimony and court orders. One thing, however, is certain. The case against the president could only have become stronger. The vote for witnesses failed by one for a tie and by two for a majority. A more complete record could well have tipped the balance and certainly would have made the vote against witnesses more difficult for some senators. Instead, the House submitted an incomplete record and failed to subpoena important witnesses like Bolton, making it quite easy for the Senate to refuse to do what the House had never even tried.

None of the explanations offered by House Democrats make any logical sense. That, however, does not matter. As Todd said of supporters of the president, people “want to be lied to sometimes” and “do not always love being told hard truths.” The hard truth is that House Democrats lost this case the minute they rushed an impeachment vote, and they knew it. With the approaching Iowa caucuses, they chose a failed impeachment rather than taking a few more months to work on a more complete case against Trump, a case more difficult to summarily dismiss. That is the hard truth.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a witness expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing during the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

247 thoughts on “How The House Lost The Witnesses Along With The Impeachment”

  1. When Nancy Pelosi declared that (Donald Trump) will be “impeached forever,” she signaled that the ugly narrative will continue. The juxtaposition of this narrative with video clips of Former Vice President Biden crowing about his success in securing the removal of a Ukrainian prosecutor aptly illustrates the Democrats’ selective outrage. It reminds us of the words of Captain Renault at Rick’s Cafe in Casablanca: “I’m shocked! I’m shocked”, i.e. in reference to the gambling activities at the cafe. In the case of the Dem’s impeachment initiative, the cost to US taxpayers is enormous. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. For examples of why many Dems who are seeking (or have sought) the nomination for the presidency in 2020 should not hold the office, just pick up Peter Schweizer’s new book PROFILES IN CORRUPTION.

  2. The courts may have fast tracked the House’s subpoenas, or maybe not. And the truth is there is no way to know. Their is a similar case about Trumps taxes that have been in the courts since spring with no end in sight. If the House did go to court, it would have put the impeachment on hold for potentially a year. And the longer they waited the more strength the argument “But there is an election coming very soon.” Moving forward without the best witnesses may not in retrospect been a great choice, but it was a reasonable one.

    The blanket blocking of all witnesses and documents was quite bad, in bad faith, and a valid article of impeachment. The Trump lawyers are in court arguing this point themselves.

    Personally I would have preferred to see no impeachment (unless they had a case the even the Republicans would support) and just keep holding hearings to air all the scandals.

    1. The House has a constitutional perogative to impeach Mr. Trump….access to tax or medical records of any citizen…including Mr. Trump is protected…night and day.

  3. The record may have been more complete not necessarily stronger. We still do not know what Bolton may have testified.
    The House knew they had a flawed and weak case. The point was never to correct any Constitutional deficiency in the part of the President. It was to use the process as a weapon to enhance their chances in the upcoming election.
    The sad part is that other than rabid partisans on the right, no one in the media has the integrity to speak out.

  4. The Democrats leading the US House lost because literally no one buys the lies of the Democrats. At my clinic, where we have a TV in the lobby for +/- 30 patients, no one was interested in watching today’s US Senate monologues. Later I saw a patient turn off the TV, against clinic rules, and patients waiting in the clinic lobby applauded the individual turning it off. None of the receptionists batted an eye.

    You keep propping this fiasco as if it had any merit. Stop it.

    1. Estovir

      We know that just about everything Trump says is a lie, but what are “the lies of the Democrats” you are going on about?

      Thanks, I’ll hold.

    2. OT: Estovir, based on what you have said it is likely that you have some affiliation with a major hospital in your location which I assume I know. Are you able to describe any new precautions your hospital(s) are taking for the corona virus? We have gone through this before with Sars and Ebola etc. I don’t have excessive fear of this particular virus rather am interested in the more recent developments especially with centers most likely to deal with tourists and recent arrivals from the airport.

        1. epidemiological research is hampered in china because of how they report deaths. we cite the immediate cause first top line and then underlying causes beneath. they do it vice versa.

          so for example. we might say cause of death: sepsis. secondary cause: diabetes

          in the PRC they might just say: diabetes

          so influenza deaths are widely under-reported in the PRC and probably coronavirus deaths have been too

        2. I think we are now detaining travel but not all cases are in China. In Florida I understand a group of high school students went to a lecture somewhere up north and might have been exposed to the Chinese lecturer (?) who had Coronavirus and they were put in isolation. There may be scattered cases in multiple places and though I believe transmission is lower than SARS CoV it is still something that needs to be contained and I think it will be contained.

          It doesn’t appear the death rate is that high and that comorbidities were involved but if a virus is able to be widespread just the numbers cause immense costs and a lot of deaths.

          ER’s are the most at risk should the virus spread so I wondered if in recent years any procedures were changed.

          1. short of a gunshot would i would never go into an ER waiting queue willingly

            it’s a great place to get sick and at the very least sit around in triage waiting forever, might as well just suck it up overnight and go to urgent care the next day. short of a gunshot would that is. i figure in most places that might “shoot you to the front of the line” so to speak

            1. OKY, that is because the Chinese have their biologic facility there that has the ability to research these things. The reality unless proven otherwise is that it hopped from an animal (most likely a bat but doesn’t exclude other animals) to a human and spread from there. One can make a fairly decent guess about the virus’s origins from researching where it started and how it spread. There are loads of Coronavirus’s. SARS is one of them as is MERS.

              1. Allen,

                My wife & I live very near a lot of AA pilots/flight attendants/employees.

                How many hours working flying/in an aluminium tube w/multiple loads of est. 250 each load exposed…..

                Even they don’t want to go into China now.

                That virus is almost a certainty a bio-weapon with what is known at this point.

                It’s been in the wild, reported, since Dec 8/19

                It was always just a matter of time before one of these Nut Job Govts releases another Bio-weapon like Lyme Disease out of Plum Island again.

                Regardless it should be treated as such. Infowars/naturalnews.

                Mike Adams is all over this issue even after his website were attacked & shut down for a bit.

                Lay low a few weeks, water/food/shelter/weapons/etc… Just like the rest of the time. We’ll now soon enough.

                1. “That virus is almost a certainty a bio-weapon with what is known at this point.”

                  Oky, anything is possible, but not probable. Was MERS and SARS also bio-weapons? If not, why not? Why don’t you produce evidence that it is a bio-weapon which is a possibility but to date doesn’t look like one.

                  1. Allen,

                    What’s been going on for more then a few years has been to either discredit people/websites or shut them down, with a lot of success if they do not tow the official narrative.

                    Just like that important vaccine info I posted today & way back.

                    If you seek the easy cliff notes of why the corona virus is likely a bio-weapon Mike Adams’ will get you the info the fastest.

                    You have to understand, govt/govt officials, big pharma have been caught publicly lying time & time again.

                    Alex Jones/Infowars or sites like Mike Adams’ naturalnews, if they don’t correct an error fast, but more so get caught lying to their audience they are finished.

                    Take it or not, same difference. I’ve been following Jones since about 2003.

                    I thought he was a nut for 6 months or so.

                    Check out Alex’s about 2013 “End Game” documentary for free. It’s $177… at infowars store.

                    1. btw;

                      you mentioned something about bigots about Islam/Muslims many months back.

                      I’ve a very old dictionary, 100 yrs or so, I looked up bigot.

                      The answer is, No I’m not a bigot towards them. My concerns & dislike of them is very well founded

                    2. OKY, trying to look for the proof in a 2 hour video is too much. I don’t think it is a bio-weapon though their research center is in Wahan. I have seen reports that this virus is causing some chaos in China but who knows as the Chinese lie.

                      As far as bigots and the relationship to people being called that when they are discussing Islamists is something we see. It is lawfare.

                  2. Mike Adams’ wife is chinese w/contacts in Taiwan .

                    He also runs an accredited lab along with some websites.

                    As I wrote earlier:

                    If you seek the easy cliff notes of why the corona virus is likely a bio-weapon Mike Adams’ will get you the info the fastest.

                    You can watch that Doc later if you wish.

                    Also, I’m not sure about MERS, but I did hear chatter that the Chicoms had already given a SARS vaz?

                    It “May” react in people harmfully with this Corona virus.

                    Zerohedge is following this.

                    I like the sites I use because I don’t like false/fakes news or news that’s 2 weeks old.

                    Banzai live from Hong Kong reports in.


                    1. Oops, forgot this currently up on zerohedge:

                      scroll their site you’ll see it.

                      4 Plagues Are Marching Across Asia Simultaneously: Coronavirus, African Swine Fever, H5N1 Bird Flu, & H1N1 Swine Flu

                    2. OKY, you are free to believe what you wish. I need much stronger evidence.

                      There are all sorts of diseases roaming around all over the world especially in less developed areas. If you knew about or focused on anyone of those you might come up with a conspiracy theory as well.

                      Think that Ebola is still occurring in Africa latest in the Congo, Polio in Pakistan, Botulism in Canada and countless other diseases reported daily all over the world.

                      It’s hard to separate junk from the good stuff so it isn’t bad having the conspiracy theorists sitting on the sideline as long as the fear doesn’t get out of hand.

    3. LOL:)

      Every place I find that the day room or lobby has CNN or other mocking bird Rouge CIA Bullsh*t, abc, cbs, nbc, pbs, etc… on the tube I talk the management into turning the channel to the Laff channel or something neutral.

      Or people can just get up & turn the channel or unplug the corrupt govt BS, that works to.

  5. “Democrats had opposed any witnesses in the impeachment trial of President Clinton and voted as a bloc for a summary acquittal. There was no reason to expect Republicans to adopt an entirely different approach.”

    Can Nancy, Jerry, and Adam blame their loss and public humiliation on what Tom Daschle and Chuck Schumer did way back in 1999?

  6. You keep proceeding under the pretense that there was some sort of legal argument there. You yourself have to speak in a legal idiom and if you have integrity stick to that in your professional capacity. It was never about that. The conduct of the other law professors who testified (one of whom now claims counsel to the opposition should be disbarred) should have made it clear to you it was never about that.

    Since about 1935, there has been escalating rage in certain sectors that ordinary political and legal processes following their ordinary procedural rules do not give them what they want. It’s not even that they’re not getting what they want, it’s that they’re not getting everything that they want. The Democratic Party is a collecting pool of hysterical children. This will not end well.

      1. The Supreme Court declared the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional. The ‘Nine Old Men’ discourse dates from that point in time. (It was unconstitutional. Unlike some other sketchy measures undertaken by the Roosevelt Administration, it was bad policy too).

  7. There wasn’t time to subpoena witness. Yet in 2000, Bush v Gore, the elapsed time from filing in the lower court to a final decision in the Supreme Court was just 26 days, 7 days less time than the impeachment was held in Pelosi’s office in a failed attempt to force the Senate to conduct the trial the way she wanted them to.

  8. the guy gave up a half a million dollars a day to be our leader. where is this personal gain that everyone on the left talks about? he is giving himself to our cause, which is to rid washington of the criminals that the highly educated just can’t see, and put us back in ‘common sense’ land’. let the subpoena’s fly. trump is the best president i could’ve ever hoped for. MAGA

  9. Perhaps a thoughtful and deliberate change in the behavior rules for elected members of Congress would be to rewrite the rules of conduct which permits the elected officials to NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY SAY.
    If they were to be accountable, the lying would be drastically reduced and people like a. shiff would not exist in the spotlight he has created for himself – all because HE IS NOT accountable.

  10. The GOP has indicated that if a presidential candidate does get elected such as Joe Biden, then impeachment proceedings will begin, effective immediately.

    1. That’s the procedure that democrats established. Election followed by impeachment is the new norm.

  11. Here’s the money quote from above, “However, recognizing this obvious blunder would take away from the narrative that the case failed only because the Republicans were protecting Trump in the Senate.”

    Right on! To the Democrats and the Left and their propaganda arms in the media and education, the Sacred Narrative is everything. It is “Noble Democrats working to save Oppressed Minorities, and Women, and Queers of every stripe, and Illegal Immigrants” against the credulous boomer rube clingers with their God and their guns. Hosanna! Hosanna!”

    Why the F do you think Trayvon Martin was ever a thing??? What, a mugger gets shot by the victim he is mugging??? That should have been a National Feel Good story! But it could be squeezed into The Narrative!

    Same with impeachment. At worst, Trump did what Joe Biden did and pressured the Ukrainians. But all the Smart People just somehow intuit that Good Old Honest Democrat Joe was up to good, and Mean Old Racist Trump was up to no-good.

    No, the Democrats knew impeachment was a farce all along. They were just trying to pump a narrative. Because there is no way the Noble Democrats could have lost to the deplorables without some cheating and collusion going on. No, because Democrats are tooooo good and tooooo smart and tooooo well-loved for that.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  12. If I understood his testimony Turley too believed that the charges did not rise to the standards for impeachment. An affirmation by witnesses of the quid pro quo accordingly would also fail to sway. Additionally with all the alleged abuse of office that Biden appears to have employed and by which he and/or his family benefited, the investigation Trump wanted was indeed in the national interest.

  13. One thing, however, is certain. The case against the president could only have become stronger.

    Well sure, it couldn’t have gotten any weaker.

    1. One thing, however, is certain. The case against the president could only have become stronger.

      Well sure, it couldn’t have gotten any weaker.

      Why does everybody think Trump is guilty?
      It is not at all certain that the case against trump would become stronger.
      If the witnesses ever testify the case will fall apart.

      1. its just the reality that even if the witnesses fail to deliver, the case in effect didnt get any worse, because it couldnt…… it was either going to fail based on witness testimony or fail on an unprepared prosecution…… with witnesses, there was at least a chance it could improve, as narrow as that chance may be…… cant dig further, when you’ve hit rock bottom.

        1. there was at least a chance it could improve

          If you believe that then you believe the witnesses had information that would incriminate trump
          but the witnesses have information that would exonerate Trump and that means if the witnesses ever testify (they still may) the case against trump will completely fall apart

          1. He was not assuming the content of their testimony or Trump’s guilt or innocence. He was pointing to the state of things – that is, the “case”, as it was, was completely non-existent. Calling witnesses that end the farce change nothing. Calling witnesses that indicate something could have happened would strengthen the case. That is, the only possible change would be to strengthen the case – whether this was expected, likely, or even possible without the witnesses lying is not being commented on.

            1. Calling witnesses that indicate something could have happened
              The witnesses (if they testify) will shed light on what did happen. We already had plenty of witnesses that indicate something could have happened.

      2. maybe because the delay in aid was a trifle and no harm done

        even if it was purely selfish

        and even if it was purely selfish, if it still was a legit exercise of powers, then it was lawful

        you guys have a hard time figuring this out, why?

        elected sheriffs investigate their opponents all the time if they have a reason and nobody throws a fit!

        it’s kind of like how the IRS goes around picking on quasi right wing charities, for potential tax return problems, but not the left wing outfits. maybe bad but not quite corruption, almost impossible to overcome in a system with executive discretion, that happens every day!

        1. Actually, there was a systemic dragnet of Tea party organization, not ‘picking’, and Lois Lerner had a history of doing this when employed by the Federal Election Commission.

          1. that’s what i was referring to and thanks for reminding people precisely what im talking about

            if that wasnt AN INVESTIGATION INTO ONE’S POLITICAL OPPONENTS then i dont know what is!

            what happend to that goofball koskinen? what a turd

        2. and even if it was purely selfish, if it still was a legit exercise of powers, then it was lawful
          By the same reasoning
          Impeachment is also a legit exercise of powers and lawful

          The position the Trump administration has taken in Court is that the Congress and the courts have no authority or power to subpoena and compel anybody ( or even any documents) in the Executive branch to appear before Congress and testify or provide evidence.

          That leaves Congress with little option besides impeachment in their attempts to get information from the Executive branch on how the law is being executed.

      3. Why does everybody think Trump is guilty?

        A better question is why do you think everybody thinks Trump is guilty?

        If the witnesses ever testify the case will fall apart.

        There’s no need to call witnesses to make the case fall apart. The case was never together.

        1. A better question is why do you think everybody thinks Trump is guilty?
          Because Prof Turley claims the case can only get stronger if witnesses testify. And everybody seems to agree. If Trump did not do what he is charged with doing then Witnesses will prove he is innocent. The case will fall apart, not get stronger.

          If the witnesses ever testify the case will fall apart.

          There’s no need to call witnesses to make the case fall apart.
          Everybody understands that means you think he is guilty…

          Of course there is a need for witnesses that will exonerate Trump. A complete exoneration will get him many more votes in November. Does he not “need” votes in November?

          1. If Trump did not do what he is charged with doing then Witnesses will prove he is innocent.

            The House Managers brought their case with their witnesses they thought would prove his guilt. They failed.

            Everybody understands that means you think he is guilty…

            That would be everybody’s misunderstanding.

            A complete exoneration will get him many more votes in November.

            There are those that thought he was guilty of impeachable offenses before he was sworn in, within hours after his inauguration and every minute since. Their opinion is not going to change regardless of what witnesses say. He will always be guilty…of becoming President. And they will never vote for him.

            Conversely, their are those that believe he’s innocent and that won’t change regardless of what witnesses say. In their opinion, he has acquitted himself every step of the way and doesn’t need further exoneration. And they will vote for him in November.

            Does he not “need” votes in November?

            His SOTU speech tonight will detail what he has done and will do. My guess is that will be what gets him votes in November.

  14. Many things never change: the aid was released without a quid pro quo; John Bolton had an interview in August that quoted him saying the call was warm and cordial; John Solomon reported Bolton gave 2 speeches in Ukraine paid by an oligarch @ $115,000.00; all the witnesses said the accusations did not rise to an impeachable offense; 3 years of investigations prompted by Democrats revealed nothing; the Bidens deserve investigation; the House did not vote on an investigation; there are serious questions as to whether the whistle blower was hired to the staff of Schiff on the 26th (the day after the phone call); lied about contact with the whistle blower.

  15. “Clearly, the record would have been stronger if the House waited”

    This has been a constant theme with JT but he never explains how it would have changed the outcome. Bolton could testify from now until election day that QPQ was discussed but the “four facts” will never change.

    Whether or not a president can be impeached for thinking about something might be an amusing subject for a law school class but most voters — including Democrats — are not that dumb.

    JT’s statement about waiting for a stronger case will only encourage Pelosi and her sack of Schiff to keep fishing.

    1. UNWOKE, after reading some of the comments on this thread, I am glad to see that you have a grasp of what actually happened.

      Unfortunately, the Democrats and their media lapdogs, take “impeachment” and removal of a President too lightly these days. When I see the same Democrats who defended Bill Clinton, taking just the opposite views on Trump and the friendly media encourages this, I fear for the future of America.

  16. Right in terms of the case per se, but of course this is political drama in an election context, so probably the main purpose of the impeachment was not to get a removal vote (99% unlikely) but to have valuable Talking Points in upcoming election, some of which will involve unseating vulnerable R Senators in order to take it back. This is important not only tactically in Senate, but for motivation. They have nothing except anti-Trump to run on, and the hope of unseating an enabling corrupt Republican majority by voting for a D Senator will probably engender more voter turnout than only focusing on the Presidential vote.

    So that’s the battleground now: both Parties openly warring to achieve majorities in both House and Senate.

    And for the record, I think you are wrong about T being guilty with more testimony. The whole thing was a process crime with disingenuous bad faith NSC and other actors within the administrative state. If there was anything substantive to it, it would have come out already given how many people hate his guts and want him gone. When he says he’s ‘done nothing wrong’ it is more than likely he is telling the truth. The man has a family. Such people don’t take huge risks to endanger them.

    1. “I think you are wrong about T being guilty with more testimony. The whole thing was a process crime with disingenuous bad faith NSC and other actors within the administrative state.”
      It’s far worse than that. Remember, the best starting assumption these days is that the D’s are using projection: accusing others of what they themselves are already doing.

      In this case, we already know the “whistleblower” wasn’t a whistleblower. It was an invalid claim (must be about a security community staff member… Trump doesn’t count.) He illegally revealed classified info to those who helped him prepare the case.
      We know there wasn’t any pressure because the Ukrainians knew nothing about temporarily held funds. Hard for an unknown to be use for pressure.
      And, we know what a mess Hunter Biden was. (Have you seen the latest video with Hunter’s dad saying “Hunter’s a really smart guy” as the answer to why he would be paid 50-80k a month for a role in which he was clueless!!! Laughable.)

  17. I find it fascinating that Schiff said he needed a week for the new witnesses, but Pelosi held up the impeachment for over 30 days. And they never gave the minority their required witness day.

    1. Schiff was probable referring to getting HIS witnesses in a week.
      (Maybe a day to get Bolton😉, who seemed to eager to testify in the Senate trial after his lawyer said he’d fight any House subpeona during the impeachment hearings).
      Had the vote to get additional witness testimony passed, there could have been a long negotiation process to decide which witnesses would be allowed from a long list of “wanted” witnesses.
      Even among those who voted to hear additional witness testimony, I doubt that they were enthusiastic about sitting there as silent jurors for additional weeks or months.

  18. Agreed on the tactics, Professor. The managers could’ve waited to compel witnesses and had a much stronger case. It’s obvious. They needed to wipe out every single Republican talking point going in and they left some holes, certainly.

    But it actually IS clear what would’ve happened even with a better prepared case. It has nothing do with comparisons to the Clinton impeachment and everything to do with Mitch McConnell’s handling of the Merrick Garland nomination.

    The best prepared case in the history of Western Civilization would’ve failed as long as Mitch had the numbers. The fix was in.

    1. “Mitch” should have been as bipartisan in the trial as “Nancy” and the House Democrats were in the impeachment?

    2. Elvis, there were no grounds for impeachment unless you consider the politics of having enough votes to impeach as grounds for impeachment.

      There was nothing Bolton could say that would be impeachable based on the standards set out by the founders. The same goes for his lawyers and everyone else involved. Apparently no one on the left making the decisions learned their lesson. Mueller did everything he could to find something to destroy Trump and didn’t uncover things he should have because they would negatively affect his case or negatively affect many Democrats. Trump did not prevent his lawyers or the White House personal from testifying. Trump released the documents. No President has been that transparent.

      The investigation failed to remove Trump or demonstrate guilt. Yet some on the left remain so desperate that they have made multiple attempts that failed to remove Trump. The latest was the impeachment and next week they will start again.

      There was no fix on the right because there was no evidence on the left. It is that simple.

      1. Okay, I’ll bite Allan…, how did Mueller try to destroy Trump and what didn’t he uncover because it would’ve negatively affected his case or affected ‘Democrats’? Mueller’s investigation was about Russian interference in the ’16 election, no?

        And why would he detail multiple obstruction instances and then cite lack of prosecution due to to Justice Dept. guidelines?

        Seems pretty simple to me as well…just not in the way it does to you.

        Trump did in Ukraine what Trump does…, he went for side benefits and stopped payment to try to get them. I’ve personally seen how Trump works in this respect.

        1. ” how did Mueller try to destroy Trump”

          Elvis, start with who was on Mueller’s team and work your way through why somethings were investigated deeply even though not important while others were barely looked at.

          “why would he detail multiple obstruction instances and then cite lack of prosecution due to to Justice Dept. guidelines?”

          That is another example of Mueller trying to destroy Trump. Let’s say you get arrested and refuse to answer the police the questions they ask. You ask for an attoney. I too can write up that you obstucted a legal police investigation. That is essentially what Trump was doing. He protected his rights. That is what Flynn failed to do, protect his rights. Flynn ended up with a jail sentence now being relitigated and Flynn was a hero and was not lying according to the FBI agents that initially interviewed him.

          “Trump did in Ukraine what Trump does…, he went for side benefits and stopped payment to try to get them. I’ve personally seen how Trump works in this respect.”

          That is what Trump as President is supposed to do, protect America and the American taxpayer. The side benefits were for the benefit of America. Read the transcript. Read the one fact from the one fact witness, “No quid pro quo”.

          You may have superficially seen how Trump works and I am sure that I wouldn’t be totally pleased with all his actions but they were pretty similar for most builders in NYC at the time. Trump did nothing criminal but of course if you can show proof of guilt that would hold up in court go ahead. Let us hear what you have to say.

          Be careful. You assumed you knew alot about NYC and I knew nothing but you were wrong. You now are assuming that what you have seen of Trump is meaningful. I have seen many of those things too and they were par for the course for most people. I so happen to know a bit about his business along with other things he has been involved with so go ahead, tell us what you have to say.

      2. And actually, Trump was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. You may not like that reality. Doesn’t make it not true though.

        Could’ve been a more thorough case presented by House managers by waiting for more Court feedback for subbing witnesses, certainly. Dems biggest mistake was being willing to wait out the Christmas break but not wait it out further. Even with that, they proved their case and Trump counsel only responded with process objections.

        1. “And actually, Trump was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. You may not like that reality. Doesn’t make it not true though.”

          Elvis, you can think and say what you want, but go ahead and try to prove your case. You can’t and neither could the Democrats because the case was a fraud. Trump has a right to seek the courts advice and rulings. The Dems obstructed justice but you don’t seem to care. That is fine with me because he will be found not guilty.

          Let’s hear facts. We already know your opinion and we already know that with or without facts you will side with your chosen political party. That is fine but just don’t act as if you have any superior knowledge of what has happened. You don’t.

  19. Don’t kid yourself. Republicans would not have voted to remove Trump if they had a video of Trump personally threatening the Ukraine premier on National TV. They have married themselves to him and if he goes down they go down. A bad position to be in but that’s where they are

    1. You are descriibing ME, and I do not feel that I am in a “bad” position. Nope. I have a President who puts this country first and who does not feel the need to be a part of the la-di-da Washington “in” crowd. He is just declasse enough to call out the Biden’s corruption and not attempt to smoothe it over when talking to other leaders. How refreshing!

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    2. But there is no video, and he will not go down. That’s a great position to be in, thank you very much!

    3. thats a disingenuous commentary……. I’ve been saying forever, it would be nice to legitimately criticize trump, if he wasnt accused of everything under the sun to be some sort of crime, never with any proof of such a crime, or the over-dramatization that something is a crime where no actual crime exists……. you might actually get some positive response from republicans. oh, and your side has a good deal of house cleaning to do too before you can even think you’re anywhere near the high ground morally lol.

      the facts are: the things trump could be legitimately impeached and convicted for legally, are the same things democrat leaders have done for decades, as well as other republicans leaders, and leaders of both sides continue to do down ballot, even things that could remove local mayors all across the nation. This means, if you try to take trump down for those things, you take down the entire government, including its sub alphabet soup agencies that more often than not operate outside of constitutional bounds.

      so we on the right know right where we are, and where the pieces are positioned on the board, and we are in a much stronger position, politically and legally than you are, unless you want a complete dismantling of government…….. and we have a LOT of politicians on the left to thank for our strong position now.

Comments are closed.