But will the Senate GOP members realize it…

MS Taylor makes a compelling argument for the trial to consider witnesses and new documents and finding of other government agencies.

The Trumpettes will pshaw the whole thing, like they always do because it came form the NYT. But Ms. Taylor is a senior editor at LAWFARE and a fellow @ Brookings. Pretty centrist organizations. (Check the WIKI pages for confirmation.)

31 thoughts on “But will the Senate GOP members realize it…

  1. Trump has put the GOP in a box. If they have a real trial and subpoena witnesses who have first hand knowledge it will be very damning and they will be at risk if they do not vote to convict. If they have a phony trial with no witnesses they will be at risk for making a mockery of the Constitution.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. There is another option.

      They can call enough witnesses to show that Trump had probable cause for investigating the Biden corruption in the Ukraine AND to show that Trump had reason to distrust our intelligence and FBI and thus was justified in asking another country to take the lead so he could keep the investigation at arm’s length.


      1. Cruz (I think) suggested a 1 for 1 witness deal.

        We get Hunter, you get Bolton. And so on down the line.

        I don’t think the Republicans will go for that since the evidence is pretty strong against Trump.

        But, hey…

        Liked by 3 people

          1. Given the dam(s) breaking as they are, I don’t the “pshaw” ing will be possible much longer regardless.

            The “corruption” defense is farcical on its face and the extortion evidence is too compelling for even the most graven of the GOP Senators to keep a straight face for but so long..

            tick, tick, tick…

            Liked by 2 people

      2. @Tabor

        Again you demonstrate a very shaky understanding of the legal meaning of “probable cause.” What is the crime? Where is the evidence supporting a finding of “probable cause?” Where are the warrants?

        There is ZERO possible legal justification for forcing another country to prosecute an American citizen for totally unspecified crimes. If the President distrusts the DOJ the solution is NOT to farm out their work to other countries.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. @Tabor

            Yeah, Ok. Investigate and have the President of Ukraine make a public announcement about it. That is such a legitimate thing to extort.

            So, the question remains, what is the evidence establishing probable cause and for what crime?

            The fact that you insist on pretending that this whole criminal endeavor was a legitimate exercise of Presidential powers says a lot about your level of intellectual honesty because, really, I do not believe that you are stupid enough to believe that it was. And what it says you have demonstrated for years. Remarkably, without apparent embarrassment.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. @tabor

            I’m surprised you can’t seem to understand the fundamental difference in what he (increasingly) clearly did and the point(s) you are using to defend his actions.

            He was wrong morally, ethically, legally, and most importantly, Constitutionally…

            Liked by 2 people

        1. @Tabor
          Read the transcript?

          There is no transcript. Just heavily edited notes.

          So, read the evidence. The sworn testimony of Trump operative Gordon Sondland makes it clear that the objective was a public announcement by the President of Ukraine focused on the Bidens. The purpose of such an announcement could only be to do political damage to Biden.

          Liked by 2 people

      3. You mean the same intelligence he used to take out the Iranian General?

        I’m sorry, but you keep doing the same thing. “Bidens are corrupt” – mantra but there has been NO investigation opened by DOJ or any other AMERICAN intelligence or LE organization. Until THAT investigation is opened, Mr. Trump has NO leg to stand on wrt a Ukrainian investigation.

        And I would really love to know this list of witnesses you have that there was probable cause to open an investigation.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. Impeachment is a political process — not a legal one. House Dems used that argument to justify the hyper-partisan structure of their process.

      Given that everyone agrees that this is indeed, a political issue, why would anyone expect GOPsters to be less partisan than Dems?

      Heck, if the Senate were a generic US court, the judge would toss this hoax with a simple motion to dismiss.


      1. Then why the constant battle cry of the GOP in the House that there was no due process? You can’t have it both ways.

        Why should we expect any senator to take an oath to do impartial justice even after he or she claimed he or she won’t?

        If McConnell were to request a dismissal he would be guilty of attempting cover up the malfeasance of Trump. His abuse of power for personal political gain is more blatant than Bill Clinton receiving a hummer from an intern. And much more dangerous to the national security of the country.

        PS Nice to hear from you again.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. {Why should we expect any senator to take an oath to do impartial justice even after he or she claimed he or she won’t?}

          ==> As noted, I expect Senate GOPsters to be as partisan as House Dems. Don’t you?

          (Nice talking to you again, too)


  2. The Senate will hear arguments from the prosecution and the defense. The Senators will be able to ask questions about what they hear. After that the Senate will take up the question whether witnesses and other fact finding are needed to decide the case.

    Until the Senate reaches that point, worrying about this particular issue is a waste of time.

    But I get it: The articles of impeachment the House passed are bogus. Democrats might as well start complaining now since they know they won’t be happy later. Maybe they can save face by creating the illusion of being consistent.


    1. Fair enough. That is the process, like in Clinton’s case.

      How do you feel about certain senators, prior to taking the oath to do “impartial justice” announcing prior to the delivery of the articles that they will not be impartial (I’m talking about both sides, not just McConnell.)? Should they be censured and removed from the jury pool for preemptively announcing that they will NOT be impartial?

      Also, the growing evidence linking the Oval Office to what actually happened and the intent behind it, does that not need to be heard in order to have a fair trial (for both Trump and the people)? Or can it just be dismissed as irrelevant? Kiind of like calling Hunter Biden to testify. He is not a fact witness to what Mr. Trump is accused of doing.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “How do you feel about certain senators, prior to taking the oath to do “impartial justice” announcing prior to the delivery of the articles that they will not be impartial…”

        I feel the comment is childish. It reminds me of the crybaby three year old who doesn’t get something he wants, then wails, “Its not fair!”

        The House botched its impeachment inquiry in such a way that nothing can save it.


        1. So it is childish to question our political leaders who openly vow to betray an oath? Wow. I expected some sort of comment, but childish was not one of them.

          I agreed with you on the process because it is in line with 1998. However, to take an oath to do impartial justice, as was taken this week, even though you have already stated that you are not impartial and will not be an impartial juror, as McConnell did, is grounds in most trials to be excused as a witness.
          I also note that you left out the part of my post concerning those on BOTH sides of the aisle. Cherry picker Roberts strikes again!

          It is not childish. It is as patriotic as possible. If McConnell does not do impartial justice under the oath he and 99 of his senate brothers and sisters took AND SIGNED, is grounds for contempt of Congress and censure. IMHO

          Liked by 2 people

          1. You asked me how I feel, and I told you. You don’t like what you got, so you cast aspersions. How grown up is that?

            Had you asked what I think, I might have said that you cite no examples of the problem, but only make a vague, unsubstantiated assertion. I would also have pointed out that admitting bias or preconceptions does not invalidate an oath to be impartial in analyzing data that has not been presented yet. Most adults understand this.


          2. If you watch McConnell say repeatedly he will not be an impartial juror But that doesn’t feed into your narrative.

            And you give a pass to those who back you regardless if how STUPID it sounds.

            Fisher Price called and they are shipping you a mirror.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “If you watch McConnell say repeatedly he will not be an impartial juror But that doesn’t feed into your narrative.”

            You keep making that claim, but you offer no quotation or source to back it up. Most likely, you misunderstood something you think you heard. Or maybe you don’t understand how the impeachment oath works.

            But it doesn’t matter. Either way you are wasting time talking about things that haven’t even happened. There is, as a result, no basis in your commentary for serious discussion.


      2. “Fair enough. That is the process, like in Clinton’s case.”

        Actually no. In Clinton’s case all the witnesses with relevant knowledge had already testified under oath about what they knew. There is no fair parallel with this impeachment where Congressional subpoenas have been defied. Comparing it to the Clinton impeachment is just more GOP dishonesty.


  3. There are video clips of literally everyone adopting opinions that are 180° out of sync with what they were saying during the Clinton impeachment. However, Mr Dershowitz is one of the few who hasn’t flip-flopped, for he opposed the Clinton impeachment, too.

    In any case, he knows more about the Constitution than anyone in the room. He also knows that one of the reasons the Founders created the Senate was to diffuse the destabilizing lunacy of rabid, hyper-partisan extremists, like those who impeached Mr Trump.

    When Mr Trump released the transcript of his telcon with President Zelensky, he blew Adam Schiff’s and Eric CIAramella’s plot right out of the water.

    That is the ONLY evidence that matters — and that is likely why there is growing support to speed this thing up be done with it.


    1. Ignoring new evidence concerning the abuse of power, Article One, would be a miscarriage of justice. To claim otherwise indicates the fealty to Trump and not to the Constitution.

      And the “transcript” was not complete. The release even stated that it was not a transcript, but a summary. The colonel even stated as such and filled in some of the blanks. All the more reason to hear from Pompeo, Pence and any one else with further first hand knowledge.

      There is more growing support for witnesses and documents from the people that matter most: We, the people. The speed up is requested by Trump and his minions before more proof comes out.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Actually, it’s a damn shame that Mr Trump had to release the transcript, for it comprises the trust that foreign officials have re their conversations going public. As a result, Dems have inflicted enormous harm on the ability of future Presidents to conduct foreign policy.

        What is the point of calling witnesses who are not gonna testify? Seriously, if House Dems declined to challenge executive privilege, the Senate will not either. Heck, even if they wanted to, there is not enough time to litigate it.

        Now, Kamala Harris says that she will call for Lev Parnes; however, seriously doubt that Ms Harris’ colleagues — including her Dem colleagues — want any part of that guy!

        “There’s a lot talk about Biden’s son, that Eiden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.”‘

        Was there a legitimate US interest in learning about Burisma and Hunter Biden’s involvement — and/or whether Uncle Joe leveraged US aid to stuff his son’s bank account with ill-gotten gains?

        The answer is yes.


        1. All of it has been proven to be a nothing burger. Biden did not do anything that wasn’t already the policy of the administration and that of several other western governments. It was not an American policy decision alone as anyone who pays attention to facts knows.

          Damn those pesky facts.

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s