You elected a criminal to the highest office and then are surprised when he's caught in criminal activities...
17
It came out today; that BHO called trump a fascist.
Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy. The problem is, in America we have safeguards against dictatorial power, suppression of the opposition and Regimentation of society. Trump will try and continue to fail.
2
"Integrity of impeachment"?!?
Not with THIS Republican gaggle!
4
In an odd way, this might be good for the nation. It’s unfortunate that all this had to happen, but it is happening, and even people that voted for Trump are forced to see some of it, even if they try to look away.
If Hillary had won, she would had been less awful than Trump, but none the less, a bit awful in her own away.
The Trump supporters would have learned less about their own poor judgement if Hillary had won. But this, it is so awful, pathetic liars, that it might be useful. Instructional. Educational.
6
No! Your in charge! More wine please!
1
NO! DJM
The disabusing of the impeachment process by not allowing witnesses by the GOP is more lawlessness supported by McConnell. The corruption evident in the GOP’s actions is unconscionable and unacceptable
10
Can a sitting president block witnesses at his own impeachment trial? Yup, he's been doing that since this whole mess got started.
The more important question is how do we fix the flaws and prevent other presidents from cheating? If Trump gets around the trial and wins in November, we are really deep into the swamp he was going to drain.
And, as a final question: "Where was the judicial branch when all this was going down? Roberts should have told the entire judiciary that any suits brought before them were involved in impeachment investigation should be moved to the top of the stack. If Trump continues, we can place John Roberts ahead of Benedict Arnold in the list of traitors - but only the winners write history, so maybe he'll be remembered as a great patriot.
9
The founding fathers did not envision the concept of executive privilege when they wrote the constitution. My bet is that if they had asked some of the founding mothers, they would have said “ sure, we can see a man not allowing evidence about something he did....”
2
house democrats should make it clear that unless witnesses are called by the senate there is going to be a second round of impeachment after they subpoena all the witnesses that failed to show up the first time.
10
Merely addressing the question of the president using the powers of his office to shield him from prosecution is not enough.. Short of conviction under the second article of impeachment will leave a hole in the constitution for any crooked president to drive a truck through. As Manager Schiff said, without article two there is no article one.
It would be interesting to hear what Prof Finkerstein would have to say about Justice Roberts issuing subpeanas himself..as has been mentioned elsewhere in the Times today...
6
He might be able to block witnesses at the removal phase of this trial.
It's another matter come November. The one thing a sitting president will have trouble obstructing is when he and his enablers are voted out by a nation of seriously upset and offended citizens who have had it.
4
Dershowitz is presenting an argument which sounds clever but which totally misses the reason that impeachment exists, it's to stop harmful behaviors which the courts and elections cannot address in a timely manner. His argument that impeachment can only be held justified when based upon explicit violations of law is actually an argument that impeachment is not to save the state from a faithless oath breaker but only by common criminal acts which can be proven by the statutory requirements. Stupidly ignoring the role of a President in our form of government and the great harm one might do without any remedy except a coup or impeachment until the next election.
4
We have seen the creation of an Imperial Presidency since WWII.
The Executive Branch has committed how many illegal acts during that time without any consequences?
It's no wonder that Trump believes he has Sovereign Immunity.
The failure of Congress - and the electorate - to hold some of our past Presidents accountable for their behavior has created this mess. Obama's failure to investigate any of his predecessor's crimes told Trump that he could do anything.
3
Dems don’t want to see Biden have to testify as part of a witness swap. And, yes, no one wants this to last indefinitely. I see a vote for no witnesses and a vote on removal by weekend. My guess.
Yes, he can.
He can do anything you can’t stop him from doing. Catch-22.
5
"I have the right to do whatever I want as President".
By executive privilege, I ordain that any vote in the Senate for my removal will be null and void.
3
it is just like putin rewriting the russian constitution so he can stay in power..
trump supporters are essentially doing the exact same thing.
5
Joe Biden's name has been invoked a number of times in the Impeachment Proceedings. He is in unique position to put pressure on Republican Senators to vote to open up the proceedings to witnesses.
Specifically, Biden should announce that he wants to go on Chris
Wallace's Show on FOX, with his Son, Hunter, and answer any and all questions about their dealings in Ukraine and any other topic.
He should do it in the next 48 hours and announce that he is available to the Senate for public testimony.
Force the Republican Senators to go on the record saying "we do not want any more information from Joe Biden or John Bolton or Mick Mulvaney or anybody else." Then sit back and watch the "horror stories" drip out for the next 10 months.
Someone wake up Biden, quick.
3
The future presidents to whom Donald Trump wants to deliver dictatorial power include, most immediately, himself. There can be no doubt what the remainder of this term of his presidency will be if he defeats the power of Congress to hold him in check. All of the little people who had the courage to stand up to him this time around will be crushed. There will be no lie too brazen to be told and retold. The will be no fraud too ugly to be committed and then supported by those who will profit from it or terrified to oppose it. And if he gets away with it and is then re-elected, by fair means or foul, he will have joined autocrats like Putin and Xi and Erdogan who make a mockery of the democratic ambitions of the citizens of their countries. Except that he will have started from a much higher place, a nation once thought to lead the world through the example of its over two centuries of government of the people, by the people and for the people. Will the GOP finish its renunciation of the legacy of Abraham Lincoln by letting our democracy perish from this earth? Will John Roberts, allegedly an institutionalist, deign to dirty his hands in “politics” and allow the institution of America to be destroyed?
5
Dershowitz et al are indulging in sophistry as to what constitutes impeachable offenses, ignoring the purpose of impeachment entirely. They are presenting general arguments about principles as to what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors must be explicitly defined with explicit elements which must be enumerated and met in order to secure a conviction. It's completely ridiculous because the impeachment is about what to do when a President acts contrary to limits to the authority given to the President and clearly violates the oath of office. When a President exceeds the authority granted to him/her, the oath of office is broken but it need not be a specifically forbidden act, which is what statutes provide. That is the sophistry, the pretense that the responsibilities and limits of authority cannot be considered crimes unless some statutes is legally violated.
7
I find the word "obstruction" inappropriate and tendentious. If Congress subpoenas a White House official and the White House goes to court to resist the subpoena, the White House is not "obstructing" anything but challenging the validity of the subpoena in a perfectly normal, legal way. Congress and the executive are always going to be disputing about aspects of their respective powers and where the boundary between them lies. It is properly the courts' role to referee their disputes.
1
Thank you very much for making the point that the process and the precedents set are important above and beyond the impeachment of this particular President per se. The Trump presidency has highlighted how many of our systems work as long as the people filling the higher roles are willing to follow at a minimum the 'common standard of behavior', but are not really designed to stand up to people who decide to ignore precedents and common practice. Letting an accused person decide if witnesses can testify against them or not makes no sense at all and would not be allowed in any court. If the President - and noone else, ever! - is allowed to pick and choose which witnesses testify at his trial this would destroy the notion that in the USA we're all equal under the law - the very foundation democracy is built on.
5
If the rule of law means anything, then a legal proceeding must have access to relevant facts, documents, and witnesses.
Allowing the executive branch to to withhold witnesses and evidence without proving overwhelming danger to the country is to allow utter lawlessness to rule the executive branch.
Justice delayed is justice denied. A cycle of reviews allowing a full cycle for each of many different claims of privilege that will outlast the entire term of elected office ensures any unlawful behavior will not be addressed before it becomes moot. This is where we now find ourselves.
We now have neither the rule of law nor a system of justice.
2
The Senate will vote on whether to subpoena witnesses. That at least seems assured. Not clear yet who has the numbers or if Roberts will have to break a tie. Witnesses will actually benefit Republicans more both in the short and longer term but I'm not convinced they see it that way.
1
"Can a sitting president block witnesses at his own impeachment trial?"
That's the question. And if he can block witnesses and documents the whole process is obstructed.
That's why obstruction is a crime.
An innocent person would be happy to explain in detail.
4
As to this unending whining that Democrats are trying to undo the 2016 election, I say to Republicans, "get over it!" Trump won the election. He is the President.
Democrats are concerned with what he has done as President.
That is the issue, and the fact that many people expected something like this even before the election just makes the whole thing even more sad.
12
That is the point.
The trial could go on for ever over disputes on executive privilege.
That is why there will be no witnesses.
4
Pretty near hopeless, (But little stars of hope are peeking through.)
1
All very good, logical points. But as we all know by now logic has zero hold on myopic Republican thinking. What Republicans don't seem to grasp is that their actions, or their inactions, will have set a precedent for all future Presidents - both Republican and Democrat. I can't wait to hear their howling when a Democratic President does what they allowed.
4
Many of the Republicans are hoping to secure the Office of the President “permanently.” I know that may sound crazy to many, but that’s what Trump, Barr, and the GOP leadership are hoping to realize.
3
Yes, this is a critical question, and common sense, if not judicial sense, says that a President under impeachment cannot obstruct witnesses or documents to prevent them from being introduced as evidence. This was eminently clear in the House impeachment proceeding, but the House dropped the ball. Their reason - they didn't want to delay moving forward - was misguided. What was the hurry? The longer this drags out the more pressure is placed on Republicans to do the right thing. Moreover, it short-circuited the discovery of additional evidence and testimony - as we've seen in the time since it went to the Senate. Holding onto the Impeachment Articles would've also kept pressure on Trump and perhaps kept him distracted enough to keep him from making more nation and world-affecting decisions. Also, it would've enabled the House to add further articles as evidence and testimony came to light. Finally, the longer this takes, the longer Trump cannot claim "vindication", and the closer it gets to November, the fresher his treachery will be in voter's minds.
Perhaps America will get lucky, and Chief Justice Roberts will save us from this Trump stonewall, aided by the Republicans. It will take action on his part because the Republicans will not yield. They know in their hearts Trump is guilty, and the are terrified of having to vote to remove him, or have no cover to hide behind. So, the real question is: Does Justice Roberts have the courage to administer justice?
1
Block witnesses and threaten them as well as far as Republicans are concerned.
Heck, threaten the prosecution.
This isn’t the behavior of a President. This is the behavior of a dictator.
5
@Chickpea
If one of his henchmen rubs out a witness or two, or makes things go bad for the family of one, well, the Don can pardon him. All legal-like and everything.
What could possibly go wrong?
2
“The presiding officer [Chief Justice] shall have power to make and issue, by himself ... all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules ...” -Senate Rule V on Impeachment.
Technically, there has not been a trial in the House at all. That was an investigation. This is the only trial! If Roberts allows the McConnell plan to proceed, our Senate will make a summary judgement for purely political reasons, 53-47 like a SCOTUS 5-4 decision issued without any basis in facts or testimony beyond the House indictment before the 100 judges.
Roberts will be remembered for this decision.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/john-roberts-impeachment-witnesses.html
3
Can our Siberian President Donald John Trump, Sr. and his and our Russian Czar Father Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin collude, collaborate, conspire, coordinate and cooperate to distract their hacking, interfering and meddling in 2016 bigger and bolder in 2020 beginning with this impeachment?
If the Trump Ministry of Propaganda aka Fox News and the Trump Minister of Propaganda aka Sean Hannity have their say of course they can.
Aided and abetted by the useful assets and idiots Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.
By the way other than Bill Barr and Rudy Giuliani who is Trump's ' Roy Cohn ' in this process ?
4
Trump is his own Roy Cohn. After all, it was Roy Cohn who tutored Trump in his grifting, lying, bullying, thuggish, criminal ways.
3
Agree with every word, but not the headline - The big question is whether elected representatives understand their role and their duty to the nation. It seems nobody expects them to even make the attempt.
The other question is far more mundane - Do politicians understand that presidents come and go and that there may be ramifications regarding their own actions?
If you search "Republican+indictment" on Google News, you get pages upon pages of various indictments, whimpering defenses of various things, endless denials of practically every word in the English language, and more. The writing is engraved on the wall for Trumpism and its tedious, boorish adherents already.
This impeachment is a good example of the actual state of the entire culture of the GOP, not just the infinitely uninteresting Trump. Senators are now jumping up and down on their own future eggshells, and the likely result isn't going to be pretty.
3
With the House unable to enforce anything (subpoenas, testimony, whatever), there exists no real oversight role for the House.
We can pretend this is not so, to allow personalities like David Gergen their moment in the sun, but the realities indicate that we might as well be in your average banana republic.
So much for having founding fathers.
2
The answer to the question is that in an impeachment trial the President should have no rights to withhold evidence if we are a democracy and the trial is going to be exhaustive, fair, and impartial. Of course in a totalitarian state, the answer is the reverse since the results of the trial are preordained and the evidence is cherry picked and manipulated for political effects, not for justice.
1
To Ms. Finkelstein: It is my understanding the Trump HASN'T actually declared 'Executive Privilege' when blocking ALL the witnesses so far. I think the WH has only ordered/instructed them to ignore the subpoenas so far. Since apparently invoking 'Executive Privilege' technically requires specific national security conditions, the witnesses have only been BULLIED into complying with the WH's instructions.
I TOTALLY agree with your article's sentiment that it's beyond the pale that Trump has been "allowed" to block witnesses and evidence at his OWN trial for abusing his power. Imagine if Al Capone had been allowed to claim that HIS tax records were his own private property and couldn't be used to convict him.
It seems like we really are in bizzaro world, right now.
2
The question of a number of Republican Senators willing to take the matter of subpoenas thru the courts reminds me of a statement: . . . have their heads on a pike. I can't imagine any Republican wanting to so thru that scenario at this stage of the game. Trump followers would dispatch that person quickly at the ballot box. So, while the question is good, it's never going to happen. Even getting Bolton on the stand is dicey for fear of the wrath of Trump. Now, had the wrath of Trump been handled at the beginning of his presidency, well . . . but, it wasn't. These Senators need to hear from their constituents.
1
What of course Faux News and the conservative press decidedly ignore is that this question was answered a long, long time ago. Tricky Dick used the 'executive privilege' argument to try and keep the White House tapes from the congressional committees investigating him, he said that his various aides like Haldeman, erlichman and Dean were covered by executive privilege, that Mitchell likewise couldn't be subpoenaed, and the Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege only covers executive office meetings over policy, that they cannot and should not be used to try and obstruct a congressional committee, that executive privilege through a long series of court decisions has been held to things in the performance of the office of the president, not when potentially actionable events have happened. It is very similar in the law that civil settlements that invoke a gag on the parties involved cannot cover criminal activity, it only can involve disclosing the circumstances of a settlement publicly when it involves civil matters. If the statute of limitations had not run out, a lot of lawyers and prosecutors could have gone to jail for telling abuse victims who sued that they couldn't go to law enforcement, the judge who signed off on the settlement should have been disbarred, malfeasance and criminal activity is never shielded like that.
3
The bigger question is if a sitting president believes that he is "innocent" why would he block witnesses?
7
Yes, what is at state is democracy, itself!
Trump trumps democracy, and he must be stopped.
I wish the NY Times would focus more on the democracy threat.
You might consider that after Trump, a new democracy may come
"Democracy is coming to the USA" (Leonard Cohen)
Perhaps the Times can write of a new democracy and the song.
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
2
Another commentator stated that the "game" on the part of the Democrats has been to get rid of Trump from day 1. This is not new strategy. Republicans tried this with Clinton. Republicans certainly stated this openly with Obama. Witness the statement from McConnell about making Obama a one-term president. Every racist trope possible was used by Republicans to limit the effectiveness and duration of the Obama presidency.
I wish people would read history and the Constitution. The whole point of impeachment, as envisioned by the Founders, was to provide a remedy when a president fails in his duty to the people. If that president is outrageous enough in his/her behavior or dereliction of duty, impeachment is the process. It is not "nullification" of the 2016 election, but it is people speaking out.
Trump's defense team today queried whether this process would open the doors to impeachment as a matter of political revenge, such that the opposition will always move for impeachment over trivialities. The answer is clearly no. The House must ground impeachment on fact, and if a significant percentage of the US population thinks that the President has been dishonorable or deplorable in a major way, impeachment will occur.
108
@Jeff
This is called "projection."
The Republicans were against Clinton from Day 1. They were openly conspiring against Obama, also on Day 1.
Democrats, as far as we can tell, were doing no such thing.
No, they didn't want Trump in office. They waited until there was nothing else they could do *except* Impeach him.
59% of the nation wants Trump out of office.
69% of Republicans want documents and witnesses
Even Republicans want the truth.
19
@Jeff
Yeah, the last time I checked you have to first be elected to become President.
And, you certainly have to be President to be impeached.
The argument is that impeachment is null and void because someone was elected has got some serious cognitive flaws.
8
The question is wrong. Trump is not blocking any one from testifying. The House and Senate GOP is obstructing on the behalf of Trump. There is a difference.
In the first, the POTUS imposes his will. In the second, Congress voluntarily cedes its authority gladly. Today, it is clearly the second case.
2
Here we go again with Trump's obsession to establish that Joe Biden is even sleazier than the swamp lord himself.
4
The dangerous reordering of what can be done by a party in power began in 2000 with the Supreme Court’s interference in the election and their appointment of George W. Bush to the presidency. It was announced as a one time only decision and not to be considered a precedent. As if that exonerated them from stopping the Florida vote count. With President Obama we saw continuous attempts to undermine and thwart his initiatives, most glaringly the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.
This question you raised seems to have arisen as a direct result of allowing these excesses to occur without a fight to stop them from happening.
4
Once again, everyone should be reminded of George Washington's affirmations with regard to Congress request of documents:
"I trust that no part of my conduct has ever indicated a disposition to withhold any information which the Constitution has enjoined upon the President as a duty to give, or which could be required of him by either House of Congress as a right; and with truth I affirm that it has been, as it will continue to be while I have the honor to preside in the Government..."
Second, he declines to do so on the grounds that Congress has not shown any reason for the request, BUT he recognizes his refusal would not be appropriate in case of impeachment: "It does not occur that the inspection of the papers asked for can be relative to any purpose under the cognizance of the House of Representatives, EXCEPT THAT OF AN IMPEACHMENT, (capitals mine) which the resolution has not expressed. "
1
@Frank Casa Go ahead. Vote for the little fuerher and your grandchildren will hate YOU forever! Wanna buy a bridge?
1
This is a rather weak argument coming from a professor of law and philosophy.
Finkelstein describes a need to
"push back on the president’s dangerous expansion of executive privilege."
Does she not realize that Obama used executive privilege to provide amnesty to thousands of Dreamers? This was wrong because laws regarding illegal immigration lie in the province of Congress, not the executive branch. It evidenced flagrant disregard for the importance of Separation of Powers.
Did Democrats not realize that weakening Separation of Powers might be used against them if the presidency shifted to the other party?
Democrats have also undercut other constitutional protections in their efforts to fight against the "bad bahviour" of Donald Trump. If politics could be kept on performance, Trump would fail miserably---he cannot even lead his own cabinet. But Democrats are bound and determined to fight a culture war even if it results in their defeat.
The Me Too movement is a particular example of this. Harvey Weinstein may indeed be guilty of rape. But Brett Kavanaugh? Can't people see that the evidence was weak? Why force Al Franken to resign?
Due Process was written into our Bill of Rights because the founders were well aware of how the powers that be could influence trials. Take the conviction of Thomas More during the reign of Henry VIII for an example.
Trial by media to promote Me Too is an assault on Due Process. I believe that many of the accusations are false.
2
"The Fight Over Witnesses Is Really a Fight Against Trump’s Obstruction"………...
And to think all this national nightmare, this constitutional challenge, this dividing of our nation has been caused by one man and one man only - Donald Trump - his self-importance, his enormously inflated ego, his total disregard for our Constitution and his total and complete willingness to destroy everything and anything that stands in his way - starting with the Constitution of the United States……….
5
@RB : Trump, the GOP would not have any power unless the people gave it to the,. The base loves the policy. The base loves Trump the person, his values, his view of the world, his view of women and minorities.
It is not about one man, is is about the power people give a leader. Like Charlie Manson. Like Jim Jones.
2
Sorry. Mr. Philbin, one of Trump’s attorneys, has made legal mincemeat of the obstruction count this very day. That count is toast.
2
This article is great, absolutely correct, and hopelessly beside the point. She writes as though there are reasonable people in the Senate who simply forgot their role. There aren't.
Republicans are simply craven swampgollums. The idea that they would put preserving the rule of law above their continued residence in the swamp is fanciful to the point of childishness. Mendacious Moscow Mitch? Please, get serious. The only existing evidence says the Republican Lord of the Flies power structure is too much for the so called men and so called women in the Republican Senate to assert themselves toward what is glaringly the right thing to do.
A simple test to put to Republican politicians and voters... are you ok with this if the roles are reversed? If Trump were Obama? You advocate for no witnesses? You give a pass on the foul degrading behavior? Basic decency says you play it the same either way. So basic decency has been abandoned by 43% of the country. That is our actual existential challenge.
Removal won't happen. Reaction will. But perspective is critical. Trump is 45 due to popular reaction against "corporatism". It was "normal" the people voted against. That will keep happening. People still, more than than ever, want to shake up Washington. But this time shake it up by infusing integrity. By removing wealth as the source of political power. There are two clear choices for this. One of them must prevail or we are done as a viable democracy.
5
The things being tried in this impeachment are far more important than the precise nature of one facet of Trump's well established criminality. (You do not pay out 23 million dollars to settle claims against your bogus university, for example, if you are innocent.)
If this impeachment continues on the track it is following, the Senate has effectively become cheerleaders for targeted criminality.
Starting with our coastal lighthouses, our Federal government has funded and achieved solutions to many real problems facing our growing nation: transportation, education of its citizenry, establishing and enforcing laws (including property rights), and so on.
We are now transitioning from a government of laws and ideals (however ineptly achieved) to a government of corruption driven by the most wealthy and the most determined to force their viewpoints on all others.
On our run-up to dealing with the existential threat of climate change and land degradation driven by pollution and fossil fuel consumption, Congress is retiring from the field.
9
If you read between the lines only slightly, Ms. Finkelstein is exhorting the Congress to use the courts to definitively establish limits to an Executive branch that is out of control. The only practical way to do that however, is to use an expedited appeals process, something this Administration will fight against tooth and nail, thereby delaying the time it will take to resolve these issues. It has been Trump's way of doing things his whole adult life. Sue, delay counter-sue, delay, wait the other party out. It has never been more true that in this case, "Justice delayed is justice denied." Except that in this case, the losing party is the American public and its institutions.
Voting out ALL those responsible for this tragic state of affairs, Trump and his sycophantic enablers in Congress, is the only way to begin to repair the damage done by this despicable man.
10
@TRA Good points! The president's lawyers argue the House, the "co-equal" branch with the president, must first go through the courts to exercise constitutional authority to investigate an impeachment inquiry; it is a specious argument; the House has direct authority, even a committee alone, has authority to investigate and compel testimony; no ands, ifs or buts.
Yes, the manner in which the Senate majority entertains this impeachment "trial" will provide grounds for their electoral defeat in November 2020; I hope.
1
A few scholars on impeachment law are saying that impeachment should happen only if a crime occurs, as it is defined in legal statues. That would mean that we would have to tolerate things that are detrimental to our nation but aren't technically crimes, like gross incompetence, lying, nepotism, self-dealing etc. that apply to the Trump Administration. Clinton was impeached for perjury because he lied about an affair; perjury is a crime. But his case was a trap; it was expected that he would lie to preserve his dignity. Trump has done far worse, and has continually lied about it. Is the difference because Trump wasn't deposed for the things he is lying about? He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution when he became president...
4
@Susan The President's lawyers are making specious claims; crimes have occurred; the House Managers have proved a number of violations of the law.
The lawyers are continuing the president's technique of just saying lies and misinformation. Some of it all ways sticks enough to leave a shade of doubt that in this case of impeachment, the Senate Majority will hang their acquittal on.
2
I have watched some of the President's lawyers put on a show of fake solemnity and make specious claims about appropriate use of constitutional process and the impeachment steps the House should have taken.
They are not being honest, and sadly don't need to be; they only need to make an appearance of being sincere, which will give the Senate majority cover for voting the president an acquittal if not an outright dismissal after opening arguments are done.
I don't believe that Presiding Judge Roberts has the authority to protect this non-trial Impeachment "trial" from the ignominy of a Senate Majority cover up; only a simple majority of Senators has the power to do this.
But even if a majority votes to subpoena Bolton to testify, the bottom line is that the GOP majority will find that the president's shakedown of Ukraine and use of Russian disinformation talking points, doesn't merit being fired from the office. Getting 2/3 of Senators to convict is a very high bar, well beyond a simple majority for a rule vote.
Maybe 12 GOP Senators will have an epiphany and be moved to act with "moral courage." I hope so, but I'm not holding my breath.
3
Asking the GOP Senate to be impartial and willing to withhold judgement until they are satisfied that they've heard all the evidence available from all witnesses is like asking Kenneth Starr, during his recent opening statements to the trial members, to acknowledge that his prosecution of then President Clinton 20 years ago, in those same Senate Chambers, was entirely politically motivated. Not going to happen.
The best that we can hope for I think (from either the GOP Senators or Ken Starr) is that they will not be allowed during this trial and it's aftermath, to claim they are serving the best interests of Democracy by engaging in such utter cynicism and deception.
5
"The Fight Over Witnesses Is Really a Fight Against Trump’s Obstruction".
Exactly. Very clearly stated. Thank you.
6
Exchanging Widen’s testimony for Bolton’s is a win win for the Democrats.
If there’s anything incriminating in Biden’s past it better come out now, before he becomes the party’s nominee. If he’s cleared , it will be much more difficult to acquit the president, now that we have a clear idea what Bolton’s testimony will reveal.
7
Of course witnesses are vital.
Of course the GOP won't allow them.
Trump Inc. is counting on his base's reelecting him because of the depth of their suspicion of Democrats. They may be right. But on the issue of witnesses, they prove the worst accusations made against them.
4
Despite the “overwhelming” amount of evidence that House Democrats collected in their impeachment inquiry, they now think it is critical to bring in additional witnesses— why? Could it be that their impeachment case is crumbling under Trump’s defense team’s 2 hour opening statements? Is their case that weak? Imagine a prosecutor deciding to ask the judge, after they had rested their case, to call more witnesses and restart their investigation. Usually at that point the defense makes a motion for dismissal for lack of evidence. If the Democrats needed more evidence they should have taken the time and filed a petition with the federal courts to rule on their right to call witnesses that were constrain to testify because of Trump’s executive privilege order. But no, they claimed that they had enough damning testimony that was irrefutable—except that it was not! John Bolton could have agreed to testify in the impeachment inquiry and did not. He could have released excepts from his book during the impeachment inquiry and did not. He waited until the trial began and after the Democrats had their day in court and then he released these unsubstantiated statements. No, the Democrats had their turn and they failed miserably. It’s time for Republicans to put an end to this disgracefully partisan impeachment!
10
@Raul Campos
Democrats would like this to be all about "fairness" and additional witnesses, but as Trump's attorneys make their case, it seems less and less likely that anything new is actually needed.
Even Bolton won't necessarily be enough to bolster democrats' case at this point.
7
The problem with your analogy to a court with a judge who could have admitted witnesses is that in regular court of law one side does not make all of the rules. In this impeachment trial, one side, which happens to be the Republican side, makes all of the rules, which just happen to favor the defendant. Contrary to what your post says, the Democrats did indeed ask for witnesses at the beginning of the trial long before they rested their case and of course as we all know the Republicans turned down this request. One can come up with all types of reasons for denying witnesses but the only reason that really makes sense is to suppress information that would provide Americans with the truth.
133
@Raul Campos
"Could it be that their impeachment case is crumbling under Trump’s defense team’s 2 hour opening statements?" If you truly believe that, there is no argument that will persuade you otherwise, for you are a full-fledged member of Trumpworld.
Fortunately, for the rest of us, facts still matter. We can't both be right, Mr. Campos. I hope you remember this on November 4, 2020. Reality awaits.
55
Alan Dershowitz, one of the President's impeachment lawyers, was also part of the OJ Simpson defense team. In the face of overwhelming evidence, they simply chose to pretend Simpson's murder trial was about something else: a referendum on the abuses of the LAPD, none of which had anything to do with the case against Simpson.
And so, the Trump "defense" will try to pretend that this impeachment trial is really about something they claim (without evidence) that Hunter Biden did years before Trump was elected. Or it's about the Democrats' irrational "hatred" for Trump himself, as if that could explain what Trump, in fact, said and did.
Their argument is the same one Trump ran on in 2016: that Donald Trump cannot be held accountable for anything Donald Trump does, whether it's misappropriating federal funds or shooting someone on Fifth Avenue. It's always a Democrat or a "Never-Trumper" who's responsible -- and you can tell because Trump reflexively labels anyone who contradicts him a "Never-Trumper" (whatever that means).
No one can seriously argue that Trump did not do what the articles of impeachment, and the supporting evidence (including comments to the press on the White House lawn), prove he did, even though he's still illegally withholding much of that subpoenaed evidence. It's up to the Senate to decide if he should be removed from office. But there can be no question that he's guilty as charged.
4
@Saints Fan And the Senate Majority is likely to use "jury nullification" against the House Manager's argument for conviction.
1
The Founders wrote the Constitution of the United States assuming that Congress would act with some underlying political motivation.
It also assumes that the body politic would temper this political allegiance, maintain a degree of fairness, and most importantly act according to prescribed law based on all relevant facts for the good of the People.
The Founders did not foresee a time when those in the body politic would fall so far below their own measure in integrity and patriotism.
It is the Republican Party, now reconstituted in a fashion unrecognizable to its previous traditions, that has failed the Constitutional integrity necessary for the continuance of the American democracy. By denying and obscuring fact, accepting lies as truth, caring more for their interest in continued power than in maintaining a democracy free from foreign influence, they seem now simply incapable of honest governance.
At this juncture one can either vote for democracy or a Republican Party which bows its knee to a kleptocratic authoritarian President.
8
Republicans have no reason to call for witnesses and documents. Most sit in safe seats that will not turn blue anytime soon. Of the 21 up for election in 2020 (Kansas and Wyoming are open), only 3 are arguably at risk, McSally (AZ), Gardner (CO), and Collins (ME). These three senators know they will receive no electoral benefit from abandoning Trump. There only bet is to stick with Trump and hope they get lucky. Anyone who thinks red state voters are going to toss out Cotton (AR), Graham (SC), Inhofe (OK), et al. in a fit of constitutional enlightenment are dreaming.
3
Politically the House Democrats made a huge strategic blunder by focusing their impeachment case preponderantly on Article 1 (i.e., Ukraine") and subordinately on Article 2 ("obstruction"). For once Secretary of State Pompeo told the truth when he sneered that the American public doesn't care about Ukraine, a country most couldn't find on a map.
Trump’s blanket refusal to allow witnesses subpoenaed by the House to testify is a direct assault on the checks and balances among the three branches of our Constitutional government. The American public CAN APPRECIATE that a president who refuses to allow any investigation of his own alleged transgressions is acting like a king. They can understand that a president who continually acts as if he immune from investigation is proclaiming that "the state it is just me" and be aroused against this imperial arrogance.
8
@Zenith
Ukraine is next to Russia.
That's what this is really about.
Remember them? Russia? They want to invade Ukraine and interfered in our elections (fact that can't be argued).
No amount of Pompeo's deflecting is gonna take some eyes eye off that ball.
They're at
1
If the members of the Senate don't push back, they have destroyed themselves. Senators are member of one of the most powerful political body in existence and they act like a bunch of sniveling interns.
6
It’s like a huge swath of the American citizenry has been put under some spell, unable to hear or care about the truth regarding Trump’s impeachment. And yet Donald Trump is not really the issue. He’s simply a graceless and witless liar.
It takes an entire political party to kill the Truth; and an entire nation of co-conspirators to embrace a lie, reanimating it into something reasonable, persuasive and worthy.
13
It has been a great opportunity for Republicans to attend ham acting school and rake through the early founders' documents to work 18th-century tid-bits into high-flying pronuciamentos. Yet no one has come close to Adam Schiff's extraordinary and elegant summation speech of last week.
8
Wait, what? Congress needs to re-assert it's powers vis-a-vis the Executive branch? This is most unusual stance to take given that Congress has WILLINGLY given it's legislative power to the Executive since the New Deal. Congress created the "Administrative State" where our Country is run by the unelected bureaucracy that falls within the Executive branch. So, after giving up much of it's power willingly (so Congressmen don't have to make hard choices/votes), Congress should want to selectively re-assert it's powers now? This smacks of simply trying to remove THIS President...and nothing more.
1
The constant but unstated theme of Ms. Finkelstein's excellent analysis is that the fight over witnesses is a fight over the Constitution's separation of powers -- one of the absolute bedrocks of the American system of government. If the Senate is so beholden to the President that it refuses to do its duty, then it ceases to exist as an independent check on presidential power. Because it takes both houses t act in concert to enact a law or to check the president's powers, the demise of the Senate as an independent body.
Some may argue -- or hope -- that once Trump is gone the Senate could return to its former role as an senior independent body. That argument, however, ignores the reality that once the precedent is set that the Senate (or House) can ignore its Constitutional duty completely to support the ruling party's candidate, a Pandora's box of American law has been opened. While there was that bit of hope left at the bottom of Pandora's box, the evils released when the box was opened were loosed on humanity forever.
7
How about this quid pro quo: trump is allowed to muzzle witnesses against himself and withhold incriminating evidence if all defendants in trials both criminal and civil are allowed to do likewise. We say we ascribe to the self-evident truth that “all men [and women] are created equal.” Therefore, if one person is above the law, all people are above it.
9
"Congress needs to stand up for the integrity of impeachment, its own authority and the rule of law."
The Republican held Senate? The House where not even one Republican voted for impeachment.
C'mon, calling upon the Congress to stand up for integrity, authority or the rule of law is laughable.
The only thing Congress members stand up for is to shake the hand of big money campaign donors....
4
Donald Trump is certainly guilty of hiring John Bolton, and endangering our national security by placing such a lunatic inside of the Oval Office.
John Bolton was one of the loudest proponents of the Iraq War in the cable news circus.
That was far more dangerous and reckless move than a phone call to the Ukrainian president Zelinski...
1
The good Professor argues well, but she is wrong about one fundamental assumption:we are a government of men, not laws. Trump’s reign of error has underscored this reality. Our Democracy thrived because those in power subordinate to the rule of law for the common good.
Our current President has governed in defiance of legal constraints, taking a cue from his hero, Andrew Jackson. Jackson defied a Supreme Court ruling against the Indian Removal Act, leading to the tragic Trail of Tears. President Eisenhower chose, on the other hand, to defy segregationist governors crying “states’ rights”, to enforce the high court’s orders with military might. Would Old Hickory or his ignorant protege do likewise?
Donald Trump has defied, skirted and contested the lawful constraints on his business practices for decades; he has exploited all “legal” loopholes and expanded others. He has governed likewise. He has thwarted legitimate inquiries and objections of his actions by lying, stonewalling and litigating, as he did as a businessman. Getting caught is merely a cost of doing business.
Furthermore, the legitimacy of the impeachment hearings lies not in the Constitution, but in the hands of those who want to pursue justice or who wish to avoid the truth.
In a way, Trump is right. It is the voters choice to elect a President who will abide by the rule of law. They have had their taste of one who doesn’t. The citizens of other lands have sadly learned how bitter that taste can become.
4
after the revelations from bolton's book, every senator (and even justice roberts) who opposes the calling of bolton as a live witness is obstructing congress.
12
@james ponsoldt what revelations the times has not seen the book it is only reporting what a unnamed source says is in the book.
Dr. Finkelstein makes a vital point in highlighting the need to define (and curb) the limits of presidential authority. President Trump's unprecedented attack on the rule of law must be challenged-just as the Supreme Court rejected President Nixon's reading of Article II as part of his Watergate cover-up efforts, and President Clinton's attempt to invoke executive privilege in an attempt to obstruct investigations into his own misconduct was thwarted. A failure to forcefully reject, and indeed reel back, Trump's unashamed attempts to (further) obstruct justice, would constitute a significant setback in the uphill struggle to preserve democracy and the rule of law in this country.
3
The most important quid pro quo with Ukraine was in 2017. Military aide given by Trump in exchange for former prosecutor dropping investigation of Manafort collusion with Russians in Ukraine.Rudy and Trump were the principals in the deal. July 25 call was a sequel.This was clear obstruction of the Mueller investigation. GOP could care less,even if it was illegal.
7
Give me absolute immunity, or give me death!
1
Caught robbing a bank at gunpoint, seen by witnesses and recorded on cameras. Now listen to his attorneys accuse the police of being the bank robber, and judge and jury say there is no need to watch the video or depose any of the witnesses.
You don't need to be a law scholar to understand what's going on. You need to be a Republican.
After tens of years of grandstanding and fingerpointing, who would have thought that the Republican Party would so easily disintegrate, and become the symbol of moral corruption in politics.
18
The conduct of Republican senators suggests they have no concern for the rule of law or the integrity of anything. Exhibit A is Mitch McConnell's refusal to even allow Merrick Garland's nomination in the Senate.
Republican contempt for institutions and norms became even clearer after 2016. The tax cut for the wealthy, along with the nearly-successful demolition of the ACA, were concocted behind closed doors without public hearings or debate, in a secretive process that excluded half the Senate (i.e., Democrats). The bills were unveiled when leaders were certain they had enough Republican votes, and immediately scheduled for a vote. They repudiated the normal legislative process because it did not serve their partisan needs.
Republican senators care only about remaining in office with a Republican majority. That means they must demonstrate absolute loyalty to Trump. Trump has the worshipful base that provides the coat-tails they need. Trump also has the power to destroy the career of anyone whose loyalty he deems insufficient. And if Adam Schiff's report is to be believed, he threatens physical as well as political retribution for anyone who crosses him.
Republican senators will therefore vote to acquit, even knowing that Trump will consider it "exoneration" and ratification of his belief that he can do anything he wants. If we must rely on them to preserve the Constitution and the rule of law, we might as well prepare ourselves for new lives under a dictator.
12
Can you imagine what black men who are incarcerated in our nation's moldering prisons for selling a few grams of marijuana are thinking? I know their rage is intense and I would not be surprised if there is a riot somewhere if Trump is acquitted. We cannot expect our prisons to remain quiet if we continue to rule a nation like a banana republic. Banana republics are notorious for prison riots and eventually America will be too if justice isn't applied more fairly and consistently.
7
How about the abuse of power ?
1
In 2002 Bolton was beating the war drums against Iraq based on false WMD accusations. Bolton and Cheney also tried to say Iraq had chemical weapons. The head of OPCW made a deal with Hussein allowing the OPCW to go anywhere in Iraq at any time they wished, with no advanced notification. Bolton and Cheney didn’t like that because it would prove their charges groundless. Bolton first called Jose Bustani and said Bustani had to resign. Bustani asked why and Bolton answered, ‘your management style wasn’t agreeable with Washington’. Bustani refused. A couple of weeks later Bolton approached the head of the OPCW and said; “Cheney wants you out”. Jose Bustani refused to quit and told Bolton so. Bolton replied: “You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don’t comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you.”
After a pause, Bolton continued: “We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York.”
Bustani was eventually voted out by the OPCW with 43 abstentions.
And the NYT is hinting that we're supposed to take the side of this criminal?
3
@Michael Sorensen - "And the NYT is hinting that we're supposed to take the side of this criminal?"
As is often the case you have one criminal vs the other where one criminal is used to convict another. The methods, tactics, and words you ascribe to Bolton equally describe Trump. It's probably why Trump originally liked Bolton - they had that in common.
This whole thing is based on Trump acting as a crime boss. Trump threatens people with "very bad things" almost daily.
6
Ditch our stupid two party system it's what has brought us here and what has put us in endless wars and created our current obscene police state.
2
The President’s words melt in your hand and not in his mouth! The GOP Senate cannot sell impeachment without tasting the wittinesses, . . . they trying to sell meatless burgers.
Save our Republic.
Please VOTE añd register all over 18+.
4
Sorry, nothing will persuade Republican Senators to call any witnesses that can incriminate Trump. They are his lap dogs and know that if they run afoul of him, their heads will be on pikes.
6
Don’t worry. Trump supporters are unconcerned with evidence. Anything to protect their lying buffoon.
7
The United States did not come this far to fall under the rule of this pathetic buffoon and a Judas like Mitch McConnell. Rule of law will prevail.
4
Ho! Ho! Ho! The Republican Senators' goals, like the House Republicans, is to cover-up and smooth over any hints of Herr Trump's blatant corruption and ensure the reelection of Republicans through a corrupt election for the start of their Thousand Year Reich.
2
Without Article Two there is no Article One.
Maybe not the best look.....but the Roy Cohn/mob boss mentality that Trump learned so well .....
has slithered into our Justice Department and Republican Senate.
4
Ohio Republican Senator Portman said, “Instead of overturning the will of the voters [by removing President Trump]…I think it’s much better to allow the voters to have the information and then to actually take this [information] into the election.”
What Ohio Senator Portman and other Republicans who say the same stuff mean is:
• Enable presidents including President Trump defy duly elected Congress’ Constitutionally authorized subpoenas thereby overturning the will of the voters who elected those representatives and ignoring the will of the voters with respect to those office holders (Vice President Pence, et. al) who follow via the Constitution’s line of succession
• Presumably because they are not eligible for reelection deem only second term presidents to be eligible for impeachment, not first-termers like President Trump who violate the Constitution against whom the only recourse is not being reelected.
• Help presidents like President Trump conceal information from voters even though Republicans say we voters are to be informed sufficiently to determine whether to reelect President Trump despite his hiding relevant, duly requested information.
Obviously, what Ohio Republican Senator Portman his Republican colleagues are saying is worse than nonsense because it would denigrate the Constitution’s safeguards into nullities.
5
If you don’t think about what the Senator it makes perfect sense!
Who can’t handle the truth?
Are republicans so vain that they can’t admit their errors in judgment?
Do they think they’re more likely to win re-election if the stick theirs heads in the dirt and ignore the Bolton testimony and documents?
Can we Americans have any confidence in a government that is acting in this manner?
Save us the pain trump. Resign now
3
When Trump testifies and is asked about Bolton:
I killed Soleimani for him. And look what he does to me.
1
Welcome to totalitarian rule folks: The Supreme Leader dictates the Party Line and the whole apparatus falls into line - from the sycophants in the cabinet to the entire Trumpublican Congress to the Propaganda Department at Fox "News". Unhinged, monolithic and completely divorced from facts, truth or the rule of law.
12
Professor Finkelstein is a law professor, for sure. But she is applying the wrong law(s). Natural law as articulated by Machiavelli in "The Prince" states that for a prince (in this case Trump) it is better to be feared than loved. And Trump is feared. This is the real constraint on Senate Republicans who in large measure are cowards. They are not stupid, just cowardly.
5
Yawn.
This whole thing is a scam, as you can put together a montage of these Democrat pols and Democrat State Media talking about impeachment the day after Trump was elected.
Trump has not even been charged with impeachable offenses, so the Dems have not even followed the Constitution.
The Dems have now dangerously set a new standard, where all presidents can now be impeached at the snap of the Speaker’s fingers.
4
@Cjmesq0 , no you cannot; there is not one piece of video or text which would demonstrate that. You are, just as Trump does and many on the Republican side, just making stuff up. truly deplorable.
7
@Cjmesq0 the dangerous precedent that is being set by Republicans is that the Executive Branch now is no longer subject to the rule of law. Going forward this will set the precedent that no President has to turn over any documents, can intimidate witnesses, threaten jurors in an impeachment case and prevent all members of the Executive Branch from testifying. Therefore the President now is just like the Kings the Forefathers who wrote the Constitution tried to prevent us from having. If you will recall everyone with a TV saw Trump blatantly and publicly call for Russia to hack into the DNC servers before he was even elected. That was why many thought he would be Impeached so quickly. Holding up Congressionally Approved funding was not only illegal but also impeachable. Obstruction of Justice, which has been overwhelming, is also an Impeachable offense. That was why Trump has been Impeached. If Republicans cared about our Republic and the Constitution that governs it Trump would be out on his ear by the end of this week. Since they don't he will have 10 more months as President. The same will probably happen to the Senate majority. McConnell had his Republican colleagues drink the Trump Kool Aid just like Jim Jones got his followers to drink his Kool Aid. There will be very few survivors from this suicide pact as well.
5
“ Congress needs to stand up for the integrity of impeachment, its own authority and the rule of law.”
Whoa!! Stop right there!! Using the words “Congress” and “integrity” in the same sentence is oxymoronic at best and a full blown hallucination at worst!!
Frankly, I think the concept of “integrity” left Washington decades ago!! A pity for us all!
2
Everybody is a liar except Trump and I. And sometimes I am not so sure about Trump!
Trump should have Bolton testify under oath to prove his claim that Bolton lied.
This way he can send Bolton to prison for lying under oath and at the time exonerate himself.
But Trump will never do it.
Because he knows that he is guilty of abusing is power and using his office to cheat in the election and steal the presidency again.
Republican senators — if all of you are afraid of Trump’s misspelled 3 AM toilet tweets, you all deserve each other.
The GOP is now a bunch of spineless cowards. Look at McConnell, Graham, Cruz. Lapdogs one and all.
4
If it weren’t for the fact of Trump’s complete incompetence and that of his Administration, I’d almost wonder if all this weren’t a setup to get Bolton in front of the Senate denying everything.
After all, the GOP and their titanic media apparatus only wants excuses, alibis, and talk-talk for the suckers back home, not anything close to the truth—especially since they already know perfectly well that Trump’s guilty, guilty, guilty.
So, good job Trump’s only a greedy fool. We had somebody like Obama or Cheney in there pulling this garbage, we’d be in real trouble.
1
I wish I was as happy as Vladimir Putin has been since Jan. 20, 2017.
4
Can Justice Roberts please help--Throw Schiff a Line for God's Sake
5
Sorry, stupid question: Can the now-banned witnesses just tell what they know somewhere else?
Crummy example: Could Bolton (or other witnesses) make a legally valid and binding statement before a judge, a public notary or some other legal authority and then release that sworn account to the press?
Or without legal swearing in, could these now-prohibited witnesses -- many of whom drew huge salaries from the taxpayers -- just tell their real employers (the public) what really happened because it's the truth, or at least because they swore first loyalty to the Constitution in their oath of office?
Just asking....
4
Republicans would rather allow Trump to become King than stand up to power. Cowards all.
7
Don't you just love use of the word "base" to describe DJT's enablers - and look at so many of them "fidgeting" in the Capitol while America burns.
3
I have no faith that the republican cult senators or any single one of them will vote to have witnesses testify in the Senate trial. They are greedy, power hungry, unpatriotic, lying, individuals. Having truth come out about the republican cult's attempt at making the US an oligarchy is just not in their DNA.
That said, the majority of the American people can see through their duplicity. With Bolton's book coming out in mid-March and the likely avalanche of other evidence of treasonous behavior on the part other senior administration officials over the next six months, I am hopeful that our elections in November will match the Ukrainian election of 2019 in which 70% of the corrupt politicians were turned out of office.
Many of the dishonest Ukrainian politicians fled to welcoming Russia.
Where are the fleeing republican cult gong to flee to?
5
TRUMP On 6/13/2019, stated that Article 2 [of the Constitution] gives him the right to do whatever he wants.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl_gO3uOds8
Trump continues to act on that false claim and illegal belief. Clearly, he views himself as being above the law. His area of greatest expertise is in playing rope-a-dope, using the courts to pervert justice, seeing that it is denied by being indefinitely delayed, in 4,500+ lawsuits. Trump took the presidential oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. His presidency has been one violation of the oath of office after another. Has he come the end of the road? Will Roberts have the integrity and sufficient conscience to do what is proper and fitting? For the matter of calling witnesses in Trump's Senate Impeachment Trial is front and center, given the existence of the unpublished manuscript of John Bolton's book, where he gives evidence that deny Trump's claims of nonexistent powers. On the White House lawn, Trump may well claim that he is the savior. But not in the Senate trial.
3
Congress stand up for the integrity of impeachment, its own authority and the rule of law?
That ship has sailed, honey.
3
This piece uses words like "preservation of authority", "integrity", "conscience of elected officials".
How quaint.
2
Congratulations are due to Prof. Finkelstein on making a perfect case for Republican senators as to why they should not (!) subpoena witnesses.
I'm sure that they will accommodate her.
Great "own goal".
2
"Safeguarding Congress’s authority and independence is the most important task facing the House managers in the Senate trial."
Bingo.
This is why Trump is so foolish in this. It isn't his extortion of Ukraine that's the important point. His obstruction of Congress is.
Jay Sekulow said that Trump would take an affirmative defense. That means Trump will say, OK, I did these things, but so what? No big deal. Get over it.
So, the Senate could make the point that, OK, Trump really did extort the Ukrainians, but so what? That alone isn't enough to remove him from office. And they might get away with that.
But the Republicans can NOT make the case that, OK, Trump did obstruct Congress, but so what? The Ukrainians got the funding eventually, so no harm, no foul. And the President has the right to maintain executive privilege in all this, so he didn't do anything wrong.
They could also say that, since there was no abuse of power that is significant enough to remove Trump from office, then the obstruction article is irrelevant. Fruit of the poisoned tree, and all that.
But that is bogus. Trump obstructed Congress, which is unconstitutional, and he needs to be held accountable for it. He thinks governance of America is all a big game show. It isn't. If it were, he'd be the Biggest Loser.
But given the degree to which the Senate Republicans are so afraid of Trump, he may even get away with his obstruction. And then what kind of democracy would we have?
4
Ultimately, Biden has the puck.
Republicans say, “Let the voters decide”, which really means, “Let Russia decide,” because Trump openly urges them (and Ukraine, and China) to hack Democrats running for President:
“Russia, if you’re listening ... “
When another Democratic front-runner emerges in Iowa he will be up to his same dirty tricks, abusing the power of his office to bring him or her down. He seems ignorant and unrepentant.
When the Senate votes against witnesses they will not only be accessories to Trump’s obstruction of Congress/justice, they will be voting for cheating and collusion with the enemy against Democrats.
3
By virtue of Trump and his defenders already having tweeted and complained that Trump is in danger of becoming a “vassal” to “King Congress,” they are intimating that the tables should be turned, that Trump himself should be King, with Congress and the rest of us subjected and subjugated to him, ourselves reduced to vassals. From such inane utterances to Trump’s recent assertion that the Constitution, to him, “sounds like a foreign language,” he demonstrates, again and again, that he is completely ignorant of the very document to which he swore his oath and, therefore, unfit for office. Whether through ignorance, ineptness, or intention, this imposter has betrayed his oath of office, uniquely displaying that he is at once both a foreign and domestic enemy of our nation.
2
If the Trump haters were sincere about witnesses, they would be calling for Hunter and Joe Biden to testify. Let them tell-- without invoking the Fifth Amendment-- how Joe took Hunter to Ukraine to meet the oligarchs-- the ones who had bribed the Ukraine government to steal the natural resources of the country to create Burisma in the first place-- to show them who they had to pay off to buy off the Obama administration. It is Joe and Obama who should have been impeached, and who should be prosecuted now that they are out of office. Quid pro quo -- I hope so. I want the President to use every tool at his disposal to bring miscreants like Joe Biden to justice at last.
If Trump continues to ask himself, “What would Nixon do?” he will try to block witnesses, tapes, and documents.
"So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known."
--Matthew 10:26 (NIV)
2
If Schumer were the Senate leader we would have an independent body but McConnell is proving himself the swampiest of creatures by failing to allow witnesses and documents. Our Constitution requires three independent self checking bodies.
2
Exactly don’t side track the conversation Bolton and Trump cost us tax payers time and money
Not sure what President Access Hollywood is worried about anymore. He could be caught in bed with a girl scout and his Evangelical base will call it Trump being Trump and blame the girl.
3
Trump will cry, and whine, and project project project all his craziness onto proximate targets of opportunity. Problem is the nation's institutions, flawed as they may be, don't deserve this scorching, this rage.
3
Trump would like to be just like Putin; President for life. The Republicans understand how wrong this would be. They also can't bear the stigma of another Richard Nixon. Yet the is exactly the only two choices that they must face.
The Republican Party has become the face of oppression, lies, unwarranted bloody wars, and recently an assassination that brought us to the edge of war with Iran and probably most of the Middle East.
Republicans have opposed civil rights, women's rights, consumer protection, voting rightss including restoring the right to vote for those who have served their time and a host of other critical rights including the right to bring witnesses to a trial.
Republicans also oppose health care, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and financial relief for burdensome student loans that are bankrupting a generation.
Now Republicans must face, once more, their own man in office who is a corrupt, psychopathic liar. It is Nixon redux. The ultimate embarrassment.
Republicans must decide what kind of a party they want to be and what kind of America we should have too.
Tragically and sadly I believe they will vote for continued corruption and lies. It's what they do best.
5
What happens if witnesses subpoenad by the Senate defy the President's order and testify? Besides losing their jobs.
I just have to sit here and laugh. It was OK when Harry Reid twisted the Reconciliation law to pass Obama Care. Now, with the shoe of the other foot, all of you are outraged at what McConnell has done.
There is an old saying, you may not like the rules but you need to know the rules. Reid and McConnell lives by this. Get used to it.
2
Democrats know they are going to lose the next election.
2
The Senate is corrupt - which instituion is able to impeach a corrupt Senate? The supreme court? But they are in Trumps pockets too, aren't they? The justice department - Barr is a Trumper too. This looks like a totalitarian regime from outisde US. Why do the democrats not ask the best law experts in the US to find a legal possibility to get rid of the corrupt government and institutions? I cannot believe that US is on the way to become a banana republic.
3
The Fight Over Witnesses Is Really a Fight Against Trump’s Obstruction
Congress needs to stand up for the integrity of impeachment, its "own authority and the rule of law"
I am so disgusted by yet another NYT false equivalency. Allow me to rewrite your headline and make it true.
"The Fight Over Witnesses Is Really a Fight Against Trump’s Obstruction
Republicans need to stand up for the rule of law"
3
Where were your calls for fairness when the House was holding its impeachment hearings?
3
@Mike B.
Republicans were present throughout the House witness depositions and given equal time for questioning. The president and his attorneys were welcomed to question his accusers - witnesses from his administration who testified against him. Republican appointed members of his administration.
I am sure that Bill Barr has an active investigation going in the Bidens. It is silly for the “I can do whatever I want president” to play the victim. Please.
2
Is Prof. Finkelstein talking about the same senate we have in Washington?
Or is there a different senate where members actually care about the facts and haven't made up their closed minds?
2
I'm sure McConnell won't let this trial spin out of control, like Kavanaugh hearing.
Witnesses to be called include, Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton and Don McGahn.
Witnesses not mentioned, Adam Schiff, Schiff's staff, the Whistle Blower, Joe Biden and his ne'er do well son.
This is starting to look like the Kavanaugh hearing. All we need is cheer, "The witnesses need to be heard."
Two headlines on the NYTs this morning--both Democrats delusions. President Trump will be acquitted this week and Democrats will start the profuse whine about witnesses. Witnesses to the allegations which are not crimes. Democrats--you lost in 2016 and will be losing in 2020. When the debates between Biden and President Trump begin the Democrats will realize the mistake they have made but it will be too late for them but a win for the country. Vote for America--Vote Republican.
1
How to reason with the bearer of the democracy if he uses lies and misery
One thing that disturbs me is how much the major television national news has failed to cover Adam Schiff's concise and eloquent synopsis of the two articles of impeachment. More damning than the Ukraine maneuvers I think has been Trump's subsequent cover-up and his orders to defy some seventy-one subpoenas for types of documents involving six federal agencies and instructing ten different federal employees to ignore subpoenas requiring them to appear before the House of Representatives. Republicans assert that Trump has the right to fight those subpoenas forever even though Trump's arguments thus far have lost in both district and the court of appeals. If that conduct is allowed then Trump's attorneys will ask the appeals court to hear it en banque, then the Supreme Court, which even if it too rules against Trump would likely send it back to the district court as is customary. And even if that didn't happen Trump's team stands ready to simply raise another issue however absurd. No, if a president decides to act as Trump does obstructing the ability of the House to conduct its impeachment inquiry then the proper remedy is impeachment based on that obstruction of Congress. And holding a misbehaving president accountable does not overturn an election because his vice president succeeds him not his past opponent. Nor does it interfere with the coming election because voters have the right to a write-in candidate and how hard is it to spell Pence if that's their choice?
2
I am sure Mitch McConnell will do the right thing.
After you stop laughing try not to cry.
2
John Bolton is the John Dean of this impeachment. To not call him would be an obstruction of justice.
Trump has a habit of loving someone until they tell the truth then they become his enemy and a liar. This is just part of Trump's inability to tell the truth about anything and the truth is always Trump's enemy.
3
The fight by the senate to refuse witnesses who should have been brought in by the house judiciary committee is a legitimate one. Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley under oath had warned in his following testimony in the context of the impeachment inquiry in the house not waiting to get Bolton as a witness by waiting for the courts to decide on whether Bolton should be allowed testify overruling executive privilege. The judiciary committee chose not to and send the shoddy sloppy articles of impeachment forward is haste. Well as it is said haste is waste and now it turns out to be a colossal waste.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/written-testimony-of-jonathan-turley/d130b12b-e348-4851-8243-e533ad38b4fb/
Congress as in the house can stand up as much as it wants but it has no principle to stand on and it has no right to tell the senate to correct deficiencies and sloppiness of its own making.
I am sure the defense team will point to the majority senate vote refusing witnesses at this time and possibly forever. The witness charade will prolong the case and just as the house wanted to wrap up their impeachment articles in a casket and find that they are dead on arrival in the senate, the senate has equal right to refuse to do what the house failed to do. The rule of law has to prevail and the law was violated by the house in not allowing the judiciary to decide whether Bolton should testify.
1
@Girish Kotwal
No law was violated. Overwhelming evidence and eye witness testimony was sufficient to impeach. Senate has an independent right to call witnesses. Bolton’s manuscript is a new development. Senate needs to call him to testify to if they have any interest in hearing from an eye witness.
2
The professor presents good, reasoned arguments for the Senate to hold the president accountable and assert its own power.
None of this will matter (which she surely knows).
Senate Republicans have become servile, mindless automatons, in service to their mindless, narcissistic president. It’s truly amazing and probably unprecedented in American political history how Trump has take control over the entire Republican Party.
Trump and the Republican Party are a cancer in our government. They must be excused like a malignant tumor in November.
2
This all comes down to a series of (slightly edited) quotes from the movies:
Trump - "I'm the king of the world!"
Senate GOP - "We don't need no stinkin' witnesses!"
Democratic House Managers - "You can't handle the truth!"
(Hopefully followed in November by a line from TV to the GOP - "You're fired!")
1
If Congressional Republicans do not vote for witnesses and move to dismiss and/or acquit this week, they shall forever more be known as even worse than the OJ jury. And it is patently clear that shills like Dershowitz, who argue that even if, just for the sake of argument, all the facts so far established by the House Manager 'prosecutors' are true, the conduct of the President does not rise to impeachment under the Constitution. This is just to avoid the appearance and production of relevant witnesses and documents. A vote to acquit this President is a vote for another Reichstag fire.
3
PA Senator Pat Toomey are you listening?
2
It's hard to stand up when you have no spine.
2
Trump has the right to claim executive privilege, as he has done. Dems have the right to challenge Trump’s claim in court, which they have not done. Dems could have taken Trump to court from day one, but they sat on their hands instead. Now they are blaming Trump for their own inaction. Dems scream bloody murder but do nothing. It’s a shame Trump did not speak out. It’s a dirty rotten shame that Dems let him get away with it.
@michjas
You note that, "Trump has the right to claim executive privilege, as he has done."
Not according to various sources including, for example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/21/house-managers-scorn-trumps-brief/
“But Trump, his lawyers and the Republicans have made three critical errors. The first was White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s Oct. 8 letter in which the White House flatly refused to allow any witnesses to testify or documents to be produced. It was not a formal assertion of executive privilege but rather a more egregious version of obstruction that was the basis for President Richard M. Nixon’s third article of impeachment. This was blunder by Cipollone, in essence putting Trump’s obstruction in writing.”
You will note that Mr. Cipollone’s October 8th letter concludes:
“Given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections, the Executive Branch cannot be expected to participate in it.”
While Mr. Trump’s attorney’s letter refers various times to Executive Privilege, it does so in casual ways and, as indicated above, does not assert it.
For your convenience, here is a link to Mr. Trump's "flat refusal" letter: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/08/us/politics/white-house-letter-impeachment.html
Everyone who reads the NYT already knows this. The people who need to hear it get their news from the right-wing echo chamber, so they won't.
1
How can there be any doubt about what underlies Trump's obstruction of Congress? He exhibits characteristics of both a narcissistic personality disorder and an antisocial personality disorder, defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5 as "a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others.
He is a rampaging bull, trampling on the rights of any group or entity that might be in the way of his grabbing whatever he wants. But we all know that. What is desperately needed is a game plan for his removal
1
Getting down to the wire, it at least appears justice will be blatently denied by a blatently corrupt(?) majority.
Unless the Chief Justice applies the brakes and calls for thise obvious witnesses we will pass into an era of authoritarian rule, which is likely anyhow if the electorate fails to wake up and throw these smug obstructionists out.
169
@Stephen my prediction: even if witnesses are called, President Trump will still be acquitted. As far as I've seen/heard, witnesses will have little to add other than to confirm/bolster what we already know. Bottom line: the Republican base is entrenched, and this gives cover to the Senators to acquit.
11
That the Congress must fight for it's integrity, of course; it goes without saying, a natural reflex...until treacherous Trump infused fear...if not panic, in his republican minions, now concern about their own miserable seats in congress. They seem O.K. in selling their souls for expediency, supporting the unsupportable as loyal tribalists of this mafia in government. So, the integrity, and seriousness, of impeachment, is being challenged by a most shameless bully (a coward in disguise) with ample evidence of criminality (in such a short time; imagine his stampede if allowed to remain immune). Bolton's offer to serve as witness ought not be dismissed.
87
@manfred marcus At the very least that farcical idea that the Senate is "the world's greatest deliberative body"should sink quickly into the dust bin of history.
14
@manfred marcus Will they whine when the Prez decides that something they’ve done is “illegal”? You bet they will.
But too bad. They will have voted to give the Executive, “the power to do whatever he wants.” Just like Trump said.
7
How about some common sense?
Trump claim that he withheld aid because of concerns about corruption is ludicrous on face value. Trump and his cronies live and breathe corruption. His only concern about corruption is that he won't get to dip his beak. Similarly, the concern expressed by senate republicans that they were blindsided by Bolton's revelations defies belief. Did they seriously doubt that Trump was acting as described by the democrats? Come on. And finally, are they really offended by the report that Trump would put their heads on a pike? Such snowflakes. As Mick Mulvaney would say, "Get over it."
175
So you're saying that Congress was derelict in its duties by not compelling witnesses or documentation.
I suggest that you take that up with Pelosi and her cadre.
It is not just Trump's obstruction. It is Republican obstruction, and their obstruction is far worse for our nation than that of Trump--as bad as his is.
The Republicans in Congress are morally bankrupt. They care nothing for the rule or law or the integrity of our legal process. They only care about preserving their power in the face of the blunt fact that they are a minority party maintaining power through cheating (voter suppression), lying (look at the White House lawyers), demagoguery (Lock Her Up!), bribery (Citizen's United) propaganda (hello Fox News), and outright criminal behavior (the current impeachment trial--including all the minions and thugs supporting Trump's behavior).
Throughout the world, a minority ruling a majority is a formula for ultimate governmental disaster. Take a look at Syria as one standout example. The minority Alawites maintain power through coercion, violence, and the support of external powers. We are not far from that scenario with Russia looming over our electoral process, and the unwillingness of Trump and McConnell to do anything to curtail this.
If voters don't wake up in November and throw these thugs and bums out of office, they have only themselves to blame for the consequences as we slide toward dictatorship.
4
Why should they bother with witnesses when the GOP has already decided to acquit? The whole trial has been a charade. They should have voted on the first day and saved all the time and money they have wasted on a sham trial. There is nothing that Trump can do that will make his voting base change their minds. If they vote to convict, Trump will visit every district to spread lies about the GOP candidates who voted against him. Adam Schiff is right; their heads will be on a pike. To paraphrase another sham trial, "Even if the evidence fits, vote to acquit."
1
It is not the strength of the monarch that makes a king, but the weakness of the senate.
3
The greatest irony to all this is that Republicans in Congress are willing to relinquish power in order to keep their power.
The GOP herd has been ceding all kinds of prerogatives to Donald Trump -- like letting him ignore their own body's subpoenas -- despite recognizing the truth in nearly all that Democrats have charged him with throughout the impeachment process, from his Royal aspirations to his re-election cheating.
Congress is literally entitled by law to truth about Ukraine. But GOP members don't want to press any of the president's men, search related government records or call Trump on his lies. At the start, many ignored their own authority to protect the original whistleblower, despite the president's calls to expose her or him. To bring it to an end, they'd be slap-happiest to hold a trial without a single witness.
All so that a bullying little dictator won't harangue and denigrate them. So he'll share his coattails to their re-elections. So they can hold on to their rank and authority (plus privilege, behind-doors influence, a tidy income and the post-job financial rewards).
So the Republicans trade off their endowment in pieces to Trump in order to hold on to it, even as it dwindles, thanks to them. Does that make sense?
The ultimate duty of the U.S. Congress is to halt the overreach of American presidents. Without their independent force, we will shortly have a King Donald and his merry mafia band of crooks, leeches and loonies.
2
The GOP is fighting an existential WAR against the very notion of modern secular liberal democracy.
The GOP objective is to transform our Nation into a form of Theocratic Authoritarian Plutocracy (TAP). They're determined to WIN their WAR at all costs.
Being a minority they must amorally fight dirty to overcome that disadvantage and to curtail shrinkage.
The GOP Party/Base is all about existential consequences.
To implant TAP GOP needs about 4 more years (SCOTUS packing. etc.). They are NOT afraid of Trump so much as they need Trump. They're driven and focused to win their existential war! Trump BEST serves their battles.
They'll amorally and viciously obstruct, obscure, and exonerate Trump!
We true patriots must save the day in 2020 with our votes!
1
THE OATH:
"that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God."
Their oath compels them to get to the truth. Bolton has
pertinent information.They MUST demand that Mr. Bolton testify, otherwise this entire process is a sham.
1
Just reading the magnitude of diverse comments here, it's no wonder one form or other of dictatorships is thriving world-wide. Thank goodness for climate change given the failure(s) of self-determination.
The House can start hearings again as soon as possible and subpoena everyone they want including Bolton, his book and Lev Parnas. This will never look good for Trump. The GOP should get out with as much dignity as they can still muster.
Is there a "fight" over witnesses? Depends on the rumor du jour: which party feels at which moment on which day feels it can make the other look bad, will employ witness calling as fresh howling.
That's funny, Claire...
You didn't feel so strongly about the rule of law or due process when this process was in the House.
(202) 224-3121 is the number to call to pressure our Senators to have a fair trial. We have a part to play too, in saving our democracy.
1
The impeachment trial is going well, Donald said to the swells at Davos. 'We have all the material. They don't have the material."
In other words, obstruction works.
The publicans say there's no first hand testimony tying trump to the abuse of power scandal. Well, Heeeeeeeere's Johnny. (Bolton)
Read about it in his book, or ask the man directly. There's a first hand account tying trump to the abuse of power scandal in plain sight.
Open your eyes, Senators. See the evil.
1
We have to ask ourselves why McConnell is obstructing justice. The most likely reason is that he himself is covering up criminal activity, possibly from the deal he has with the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to skim money from contracts given to Kentuckians? Nothing could be better for him to hide behind than the smokescreen of Trump's criminality.
Somethings stinks, and it's not just in the White House.
2
influencing witnesses, bribing witnesses, threatening witnesses and generally preventing witnesses from testifying is a crime, Strange that we need to say and write this over and over again. The craziest person in the room has controlled the rest of us long enough. Political ambition trumps honesty, intelligence and good will to one's fellow man. its insidious.
1
Another compelling argument and appeal for right action that will fall on the deaf ears and closed minds of the Senate GOP majority.
Seems Americas greatest peril comes from within our sorted and dishonorable political morass.
The obstruction is not being imposed by Trump, but by Republicans. They should all be held legally accountable. They should all be accused of lying under oath when they swore to be unbiased in this impeachment. This is a kangaroo court like any other.
2
Obama was a more dangerous villain than Trump could ever be.
Obama was a leader that kept harming America and the world.
He rewarded those directly responsible for pushing the globe into the Great Recession with the lavish bailout, protecting them from any criminal investigation and enabling them to profit hundreds billions dollars from their incompetence and greed.
He failed to prosecute Bush and Cheney that saddled us with the deadly and futile wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, thus protecting those who faked the intelligence reports to push us into the carnage.
After promising the US blue color workers to protect them from the unfair and illegal competition, he presided over the exodus of US manufacturing base overseas and kept piling up the national debt to pay for the moving cost of global corporations.
He overthrew two semi-socialist governments in Tripoli and Damascus, the best dam to spread of radicalism, thus creating fertile ground for the rise of ISIS, resulting in several hundred thousand deaths and millions of refugees flooding Europe and reviving the far right nationalist movements leading to the Brexit and weakening of western alliance.
By supporting the worst dictators in Saudi Kingdom and Egypt, he morphed the Arab Spring into the sectarian carnage.
He created the bad blood between Moscow and Kiev, thus igniting the war in Crimea and destroying a good relationship between the USA and Russia.
Should he be the witness?
Has anybody ever tried to impeach Obama?
This is all really nice, but what you and other pundits don't seem to have gotten into your heads is that the Republican party is thoroughly corrupt and in the bag for Trump and special interests. These calls for 'standing up' or adhering to the Constitution or some other principle are naive. I don't know what stance the press should take with this administration and the current Republicans in office, but they are a hostile force that should not be covered as if they are well-intended legislators in need of direction.
2
From the first day, from nomination, Trump has been an unapologetic self dealing corrupt grifter willing to trade American reputation, standing and security for his own personal gain. He has been aided and abetted by republicans who want to change the judiciary for the next 50 years. This election is the most important vote you will ever cast. Don’t waste it on third parties. Use it to pull the full blue lever.
3
Donald John Trump's greatest legacy will be that no future president will ever have to provide witnesses or documents to Congress. Unless Congress can create a fast lane process to the Supreme Court tor resolving executive supeona demands,.checks and balances no longer exists.
Sorry this entire disaster belongs to strategist Pelosi. She did not take the necessary time in the House, she rushed to get it out of the House. Now everyone is supposed to deal with this turmoil.
Sorry, no more witnesses, she had the chance. Let’s vote in the Senate and get over this Pelosi induced virus.
For goodness sake Professor, call it what it is. Not Congress. Republicans. Rule of law? Call it rule of republicans.
I appreciate that republicans are a reflection of who we are now; I see it in organizations. The most brazen, witless loudmouth given to abusive and criminal behavior is coddled without consequence by colleagues and superiors; even rewarded. Those with integrity - often those who toil - are read the riot act frequently and loudly reprimanded to make a point. And punished. Wall Street gets to tell legislators: don't you dare get in the way of our brazen looting and criminality. Legislators cower.
It is in the interest of republicans to have an illegitimate president with a strong tendency for fraudulent and criminal behaviors - in charge. Because he makes possible the illegitimate means by which they can affirm their illegitimate agenda of a theocracy that is hostile to those regarded as 'out' groups.
Republicans probably should stand up to this active criminality, but they don't have to. They are winning. Stealing defeat from jaws of victory is a democrat, not a republican thing.
Could the fight over witnesses also be a fight against GOP Senators' obstruction? Specifically John Bolton. I'm asking as a result of the NY Times reporting the following today:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/impeachment-trial-live-01-27/for-republican-senators-bolton-brings-an-added-pressure-point-money#live-blog-list
"Mr. Bolton’s political action committee, named after himself, has already cut $10,000 checks this election cycle to three Republican senators who will have a vote on whether to subpoena him in the trial: Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Cory Gardner of Colorado and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Mr. Gardner and Mr. Tillis are both facing tough re-election fights in swing states.
"Mr. Bolton started the PAC in 2013 to advocate his interventionist foreign policy views, and it has given away more than $1 million.
"Other Republican recipients currently in the Senate include Josh Hawley of Missouri, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Marco Rubio of Florida."
Perhaps this is just another reason why Citizens United vs. FEC is and was possibly the worst Supreme Court decision of the Roberts Era.
1
When Trump was a business man, he donated thousands of dollars to politicians. I wonder just what kind of dirt he must have on all his Republican 'colleagues?' I would love to find out!
2
"The testimony of key administration or former administration officials like Mick Mulvaney and John Bolton may be the only remaining hope..."
Trump lies like a rug and, maybe with the exception of Bolton, his minions, like Mulvaney, may very well do the same.
The question is, what will the Senate do if the president's defenders are caught perjuring themselves during sworn testimony? Or will they just look away again?
85
@bijom if they testify so must whistleblower, the Bidens, Adam Schiff and others.
@wargarden , Oh please. This is not about the Bidens, Schiff, Clintons or the whistle blower. This is about the corruption, obstruction and executive over-reach of the low life in the White House.
Try listening to something other than Fox News or Rush Limbaugh for a change.
7
@wargarden Those individuals have done nothing wrong. What kind of “information” about the criminal overreach of this President do you think they could provide? The Bidens committed no crimes, nor has Schiff and the whistleblower is a) protected by federal law for any form of retribution including revealing his identity which would leave them open to violence from others and b) The whistleblower did what is required by law: he reported illegal activity on the part of a federal worker, i.e. the President. Educate yourself. What you suggest is not necessary to the conduct of a trial of this President. BTW— if Biden were guilty of something you need to ask yourself why the FBI or the DoJ weren’t investigating and why did the Prez use his “private lawyer” to conduct private back channel conversations instead of the usual State Dept. People? And why, when he finally did get the people at State involved did they think that what he was doing was like a “drug deal?”
We know that Trump sympathizers think everything that others do is fraudulent, but like a man or woman who seems to always pick people who berate them: a shrink might tell them that the problem is with them and not the people they choose. Just so: the problem is Trump and the way he moves through the world: using and abusing others. The real heart of America has had enough.
3
Based on Bolton's first-hand account of his conversations with Trump regarding the Ukraine aid cut-off and its linkage to the "investigation" of Biden demanded by Trump, why aren't McConnell and the Senate GOP furious with Trump for lying to them about his motives? The least the GOP Senate should have to do to "save face" is complain publicly about Trump's "alleged" lies and then seek to confirm through testimony of Bolton and other relevant witnesses (Mulvaney, Pompeo et al.) that Trump was and is in fact lying to them.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!"
85
@Ken My reading of the recent Bolton "revelations" is that Trump asked to investigate Democrats-to me a charge even more serious and wide ranging than the Bidens.
7
@Ken you mean rumors of his account the times clearly stated they have not actuality seen manuscript.
@Ken McConnell and the Senate GOP are not furious with Trump because they know that he has been lying from the start and are willing to accept his lies.
3
A very informative op-ed, Ms. Finkelstein, one which anticipates and clarifies many of the constitutional and legal issues President Trump’s defense atttorneys will use as “time filler.”
Since they appear to actually have no defense against the charges specified in the two articles of impeachment, we will likely be treated to some entertaining legal tapdancing this afternoon. Lawyers twisting logic and reason, like a clown making balloon animals at a child’s birthday party.
I particularly enjoy the watery-eyed feigned outrage that accompanies their “You’re trying to UNDO the 2016 election” gag. It gets me every time. If the Defense Squad had only drafted Peewee Herman or Mr. Bean to deliver that one! They’d be rolling in the aisles.
Seriously. This is a trial. Does Chief Justice Roberts have the authority to direct the president’s defenders to address the core issues of the case under consideration?
For three years we have coped with a Chief Executive who answers questions with, “Why? Because it as a terrible deal. Worst deal ever! A disgrace. Bad, bad deal.”
If asked for specifics, Mr. Trump either repeats his original answer or ignores the request.
Three years!
In this impeachment trial is there some way to force the Republicans to clearly address the facts?
73
@Tom W The only way I can see is to exhibit the results in November if they don't.
That's only 9 months away, and their jobs are on the line.
2
@Tom W May I respectfully suggest that you refer to Professor Finkelstein as Prof. and not as Ms. I liked the rest of your comments very much. Thanks.
4
The left is out to take down Trump anyway possible. They have been trying to remove him from office the day he was sworn in. The left says they out to protect the constitution or the like, but they really just want Trump gone. Trump now knows cooperating with the left serves him no good should he be innocent or guilty. It would be foolish for Trump or anyone else being constantly attacked not to obstruct. Slow down the enemy is the game now.
5
@Jim
Agreed - seems to be the strategy.
But, if you dig just a bit, you will see that Trump has been engaging in fraud and illegal behavior for decades. Now he is running our government like an organized crime family. He tosses his fans favors like Supreme Court nominations and the right to pollute more, in exchange for unfettered power.
As Americans, we must resist having our taxpayer dollars and our power used for a crime boss. Period.
82
@Jim
Setting aside what you said regarding the current "game" as you put it, just as a hypothetical would you be concerned if it seemed very likely that a democratic president asked a foreign country to interfere on her behalf in an election and make it look like a routine "investigation"? Wouldn't you at least want to hear from the people involved one way or the other?
OR are you so in love with Trump that you can't stand to hear anything bad about him?
I remember the moment Clinton admitted to his affair with Monica. It was a shock because I assumed the Republicans were just out to get him and there was nothing to really see. But there was. Do you want to be lied to like that by Trump?
22
@Jim
Most of the people in the USA want trump gone. That has nothing to do with his crimes nor the fact that he puts self above country nor the fact that he and his family are ripping off America for every dime they can grab. Focus, Jim, focus.
trump is a crook.
42
Justice Roberts faces the sobering choice of following the partisan herd, presiding over a "show" trial and remaining silent, or calling witnesses, and standing up for some semblance of "justice" in a gesture of impartiality.
What is on trial here is whether "Might makes right". If it does, then America is little more than a fascist state, devoid of ethics or morals. Republican senators are afraid of losing their jobs if they stop enabling their vindictive leader. They are asking us to trade our country's hard won honor for 401K accounts fattened by the false prosperity of toxic capitalism.
112
“...this is the moment to push back...”
This OP-ED contributor focuses on options for elected policymakers, a microcosmic reality, to assert themselves in order to... She notes numerous reasons. Options.
She overlooks, by choice, or inadvertently, the “megacosmic” diverse and divided American public. Many of whom choose to be complacent about... Others are complicit in... Both enable personally unaccountable elected and selected policymakers and their harmful words and deeds. At all levels. Everywhere.
What would happen to the silent-seated-cell phoneless, water-drinking, party committed Senators, freed from the BI of bipartisanship, if a million or more Americans, and even those “illegals, stood silently outside in the streets - which are not just for walking?
What could-would occur as an American urban-rural-suburban public transmitted a PRESENCE. Actually signaling to make a much needed difference. A viable, dynamic, historically created outcome. To be remembered. Treasured. A NOW memory and memorial that creates a sustainable difference in, and as, a vibrant, equitable Democracy for ALL!
Just as Congress needs to reclaim its powers, rights, and obligations,
WE, the PEOPLE, individually and together, also existing beyond Constitutional words, ideas, limitations and interpretations, need to reclaim OUR own legitimate rights with their associated responsibilities, accountabilities and obligations.
Given the amount of cover Team McConnell & McCarthy have afforded the Trump's, there is no good way back for them.
The Rudy Reagan knew would be pushing forward a RICO prosecution.
When the constitution was drafted the founding fathers put in the power of impeachment to prevent a monarchy from forming. If Trump is not thrown out of office then he and all future president should be referred to as King or Queen.
United we stand, divided we fall.
Is Donald J. Trump worth it? Can't the republicans throw in the towel on this one and come back in four years to fight the good fight?
1
@Juliet Lima Victor
Agreed- good grief. What is the problem with Pence. Or Romney?
Unfortunately there do not seem to be any Congressional Republicans left who care about process or the Separation of Powers.
The case against Trump has been proven 6 ways to Sunday. Additional testimony is a waste of time, and hope. Unless the rpubs accidentally get enlightenment, their votes, as well as there hearts, are cast in stone.
1
Why did it take 8 months for Don McGahn's case to get that far?
If you ask me its because of republican efforts to capture all three branches. Their acolytes in the Judiciary saw to it that the case moved slow.
There can be no other explanation, the SCOTUS already ruled in the Nixon admin that Congress has the right to subpoena documents and testimony from the WH.
They are nearly fully naked now and show no signs of modesty or shame that might turn them back.
What we are witnessing and what the media is portraying are two completely different events. It would be best is the senate gave this trial its appropreate due and dismiss this impeachment for the charade it is.
1
It has gone too far.
What is needed is an Elizabeth Warren presidency and a Democratic House and Senate in order to right all the wrongs of this president.
With the newly identified powers of the POTUS, Warren ca get a lot accomplished and restore our republic.
With a real FBI and an unimpeachable Attorney General, both Bolton and Trump could be interviewed. Lying to the FBI is a crime, which the President's defenders demand.
Congress should long-since have asserted its inherent powers, using not the hard-to-accomplish power to imprison, but the easy-to-use methods of fines, garnishments, and liens. The House should have done that before the Senate got a chance to let its own cowardice permanently damage constitutional prerogatives the nation cannot do without.
John Bolton is just another “Lucy holding the football”.
I seriously doubt he has much, if any, aspirations to be a patriot.
Like any good Republican, he is out to monetize the situation.
It is unlikely that he will testify for anyone, unless he feels that it will boost sales of his book.
2
Complacency to all he is, does, and did is required to find a logic to support Trump...and the “Trumpette’s” in the Senate have pretzeled themselves over and over to defend him. What may be even more sad, however, is their lack of fidelity to the rule of law, to which they took a solid oath to protect and defend, that requires there be separation of powers. They have divested the Senate as a part of the congress if they don’t act in good faith to investigate and find the truth, however challenging this may be to their political lives. Obstruction of Congress is perhaps the most serious offense that a president can have as it fleets their discharge of their duties...and in this case, that lack thereof. To have the Senate ignore this, to excuse this, means they too are guilty of violating their oaths. Will we survive?
You know it's nothing but political theater when the Democrat controlled house does not subpoena Bolton but now wants the Republican senate to do so. Both parties will not allow its own to be eaten by highly partisan proceedings.
While I agree with the premise of witnesses, I cannot condone the actions of the House and its leaders. They had all the ability and legal standing to call any witness they wanted, with or without subpoena, they choose not to. They started this entire process by the house leadership saying everyone needs to hear from the whistle blower. That didn't happen either. One of the Democrat leaders spoke with the whistle blower and then blocked everyone else. The house didn't even pursue the witnesses they are asking for now. Have as many witnesses as possible to prove that the congress has policy differences with the president. If the President is removed for policy differences maybe we could have Maduro run as the democrat nominee in 2020. Then he can be removed also. Everyone needs to take a deep breathe and begin to respect the country and the office of the President and the status of Congress. This is crazy!
I’m all for witnesses. Democrats beware. Joe, Hunter, and the whistleblower will be called to testify too. You don’t get to say which are important. Obama might have to be asked to testify too. A meeting took place Jan. 19; 2016, at the White House, when the whistleblower, and Ukraine prosecutors discussed the lead prosecutor, Burisma, and the problematic situation with the Biden’s. The whistleblower hears about a possible Trump investigation, and immediately tries to stop Trump. Why? Let’s get everyone to testify, for both Democrats, and the president.
1
It’s a mistake for republican senators to cover for trump for two reasons. They will pay a price in November for being dishonest. It’s fairly obvious that witnesses should at least be called. Most people can see that.
Second, if a Democrat is elected does anyone actually think they will cooperate with a republican congress on anything at all? I know I wouldn’t.
Congress is basically telling the country and the world that it’s a useless branch of government by ignoring trump’s misdeeds.
Maybe republicans want the US to be a dictatorship? Good luck with that...
68
@JR
I really believe most of trumps followers would welcome a dictatorship as crazy as that sounds. We will see if that is true if this dictator gets in for a second term. It really can happen here!
15
@robert blake
They imagine that it will be a win because Trump will be on their side and bully everyone else.
The will be in shock when they see that his loyalty is only to himself.
11
@JR
Trump's supporters want a dictatorship, it is why they like Trump so much. Trump nation are not real patriots, they talk about freedom and democracy, they talk about how great our government is, how great the constitution is, how they would and have served in the military to protect it..and are supporting a man who is acting more like Vladimir Putin or Stalin or Kim than George Washington. It is a well known fact that the working class are generally the biggest supporters of tyrants, the Russian Revolution and the USSR was run on the basis of 'peasant chic', the French Revolution was the action of radical intellectuals but backed by the mob that turned into a dictatorship of killing, The Chinese revolution was that of the peasants, Hitler only had majority support among the working class there (and Hitler and the Nazis, like Trump, claimed they were out for the working person, hence the name "national socialist party"...but once in power, Hitler killed the socialists in the party, and created a state that was all pro business and destroyed any labor power; Trump claims to be pro the working guy, yet like Hitler everything he does benefits the rich and business owners and corporations, but the working class adores him because he is a 'tough guy' who talks like they do, tough; then whine when their kids dies of opiate overdose, they can't make ends meet, etc while the rich get even richer.
8
Mr. Nadler, welcome to democracy. Our system of separated powers is not designed to maximize efficiency. It is designed to protect our freedoms.
It was Nadler and House Democrats who rushed the impeachment process and cut corners for reasons of political expediency. They took the risk of not waiting for out the courts on the issue of the witnesses because they were in a hurry. Having botched the job, they now demand that the Senate bail them out of the mess they created for themselves.
If the House leaders think that the record is inadequate to justify impeaching Trump, then their obvious course is to recall the articles of impeachment and do their job properly. And, yes, they may mean letting the constitutional process run its course.
2
An additional advantage to having Chief Justice Roberts issue subpoenas is he will decide the relevance of the witnesses he calls, thus bypassing the Republican proposal of ‘we’ll give you x, if you give us Biden’ situation.
1
For what it's worth at this point, Trump has viewed himself as a dictator or supreme leader since - well - forever. That's how he ran his businesses and voters were foolish to imagine he would run the country in any other way. He constantly protected himself in any way possible and it mattered not if those means were illegal. Even though the US got to this point, in part, because the Republicans have been packing the courts with conservative judges and these judges now protect Trump in his actions, Trump's style of governing was available for all to see. His 'base' got exactly what they voted for.
76
@Linda
I kind of think his supporters actually want him to run the country like a dictator - so long as he keeps them awash in cash and pretends to slay their culture war foes.
As long as he "owns the libs" and makes sure business can get away with whatever they want, they'll continue to cover for him. It's very depressing.
17
@Linda Unfortunately,
the rest of us got what his base deserves, too...
4
At this point, the Senate must call witnesses to reveal the truth. I suspect they are not calling the White House to find out who knew about the book, but to find out what they can possibly offer as a defense, now that another eye witness is speaking out.
Republican senators, as Taxpayers’ representatives in Congress must verify the accuracy of their positions and as we teach our children, be critical, independent thinkers. They represent us, the American people, not the President. They must not succumb to the cult of personality, at the expense of the truth.
The Democratic House managers should ask Supreme Court Justice Roberts to issue subpoenas for the four main witnesses that ignored their House subpoenas, plus Bolton. John Roberts is empowered by the Constitution to issue subpoenas, and for him not to do so at this point in the trial, when new credible evidence has emerged, would be a dereliction of his duty as the presiding judge. Forget about the Republicans, they’re not going to vote for documents and witnesses. Go straight to the top.
2
What continues to astonish me is the Trump supporters, the 40% of American who refuses to see Trump for his many transgressions.
Our democracy is on life support with the future heavily dependent upon Justice Roberts' decision whether to demand evidence and witnesses.
If Roberts caves to Republican pressure and allows Trump to escape removal, we will know our democracy is doomed and we have morphed into an oligarchy. There will be no way to remove Trump, not by impeachment, nor via the upcoming election. You can be certain the Nov election will be rigged or postponed.
2
@Law Professor "Our democracy is on life support with the future heavily dependent upon Justice Roberts' decision whether to demand evidence and witnesses."
I agree. No one can trust a CJSCOTUS that finds a tax, in legislation, that isn't there.
After reading this op-ed, it seems to me that the president’s attorneys have lost touch with the matter at hand. Their primary purpose is to defend the president against the two charges specified in the articles of impeachment.
Factually. With evidence. They must create reasonable doubt that the president abused his power and obstructed justice.
How are arguing fine points of constitutional law going to accomplish this?
As a citizen, I’ve grown very weary of Mr. Trump’s endless distractions. Let’s hope his defense team doesn’t try to win this trial with legal and constitutional distractions.
5
"Reasserting the ability of Congress to control its own process is the first step toward reclaiming that authority."
The second step is to vote all Republican Senators who vote to dismiss or acquit out of office. 19 of them are up for election this fall, 22 in 2022, and 10 more in 2024.
The fallout from a failure of Republican Senators to do their duty and fulfill their oaths as impartial jurors could be Democratic control of the Senate for several years to come.
8
Please tell me, what non-hearsay evidence against the President has been produced by the House managers?
1
Don’t be obtuse. Surely you know that Trump has blocked witnesses with first-hand knowledge from testifying. He’s also blocked requests for documents.
What do you think of that? Does that sound like an innocent man to you? Or does it sound like someone with a great deal to hide?
I think you know exactly what it sounds like but your bias toward Trump won’t allow you to go down that road and admit what is so obvious to anyone with a clear mind. I also think you know that Trump is guilty of extorting a foreign country to help take down his main political rival. I’m not sure you care though.
What a crazy world we live in.
For months there has been a clear meme. The Republican Senators will never vote to convict. And yesterday morning everything was the same. But the ground has today shifted seismically. All those commenting in support of the common wisdom are ignoring history. Up to the moment of the smoking gun, Nixon’s support in the Republican Senate was rock-ribbed. Until it suddenly melted away. I too do not think that these Senators will ever convict. For their personal survival they cannot afford to. But just like with Nixon, it is quite possible that events will continue to spin out of their control and that they will find another way to get rid of him as most of them dearly want to.
9
The obstruction charge hangs on the fact that the president and his minions refuse to provide documents and testimony to the House impeachment inquiries in an attempt to thwart them. The republican controlled Senate going along with this make themselves co-conspirators in the obstruction charge. Doesn't that also disqualify them as impartial jurors? I mean other than most of them explicitly stating that they would not be impartial and then fraudulently taking the oath to be impartial.
Impartial means nonpartisan for you republicans who don't know.
The Senate not asking for the documents and testimony are in effect saying they know Trump is guilty of Article One and are assisting him in committing Article Two to prevent even more explicit proof of that from coming out.
14
At this point it looks like there will be witnesses. I think all witnesses from both sides should be brought in at this point. Get it over with. However, at the end of the day Trump will be acquitted regardless because even if everything the Democrats accused him of in their 2 impeachment articles was true, and it is not, they don't rise to the level of impeachable offences.
3
@NYChap
The defense has no witnesses to call. The second Article is due to the fact that the WH are preventing anyone who could be a witness on their behalf from testifying because the truth is their testimony will prove the presidents guilt. I don't think any of them are yet willing to go to prison for him.
6
@NYChap So, from now on, presidents and, I assume, candidates for the presidency, can enlist the aid of foreign powers to help them get elected or re-elected? I’m just trying to understand your argument. If what you say is true, then I would hope that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren Joe Biden and others will be in contact with the Chinese or Iranians to seek their help in unseating Trump in November. I’m sure they would be able to access his tax returns and obtain information on exactly what Vladimir Putin has on Trump.
3
@NYChap what Trump has done is precisely what the founding fathers were thinking of when they drafted the constitution. The abuse of power to influence a foreign power to help win an election? The definition of an impeachable offense.
"Leaving unaddressed the question of whether a president can use the powers of his office to shield himself from accountability will make it impossible to undo the damage wrought on our system of checks and balances by the Trump presidency."
Probably the most relevant and important statement I have read since this impeachment fiasco began.
13
The Republicans cannot afford to allow any more testimony or other evidence. They will all vote to acquit, and so they already have a lot of explaining to do. They can refuse to allow John Bolton's testimony by this reasoning:
1. Anyone who joined the Trump Administration is, by definition, opportunistic and lacks integrity.
2. John Bolton joined the Administration.
3. Therefore, he cannot be trusted and should not be allowed to testify, especially if it would prevent an acquittal vote by the end of this week.
And, I guess they have a point.
2
@Renee Ozer
Isn’t your point #1 a very serious condemnation of the president?
That a Chief Executive would only appoint people of low character to his inner circle supports his removal from offiice.
Also, all presidential appointments must be approved by the senate. Point 1 doesn’t speak well of the Republican senators.
4
What is amazing is this issue seems a no-brainer -- to call someone who has valuable and relevant information on the very point at issue to testify at a hearing. What could be more basic in a process which is supposedly based on transparency and fairness and aimed at finding out all the facts? And yet senators seem to be fighting this tooth and nail. Looking on at this from the outside and trying to find the reasoning or justification for this attitude is mindboggling. Other residents of democratic countries must find it equally so.
9
Question: Why could not the McGahn case not have expedited review at all levels? Somehow the delay benefits an obstructionist administration, and it appears the courts are unable to move promptly to protect the Constitution, which is their sworn duty?
10
At this point, any senator who votes against witnesses and documents is not just complicit in Trump's corruption, they are aiding and abetting Trump's obstruction and should be subject to their own impeachment hearing... at the ballot box, at least.
21
Three notions must take a central place in the thinking of the Senators and the Chief Justice: Should the Senate refuse to subpoena witnesses, they are participating in the very obstruction of Congress that Trump has been charged with. Were Roberts to fail to subpoena witnesses, he too will have made himself party to the obstruction and the cover-up. As described elsewhere today here in this paper, Roberts does indeed have the power to call or subpoena witnesses himself. Had the House waited for subpoenas to move through the courts, the impeachment would have lasted well past November 2020.
24
Let's just boil this down to one thing. GOP Senators are choosing cover-up and obstruction over the rule-of-law and the truth. For ordinary Americans like me, no matter the party-affiliation, this means that the GOP is anti-Constitution, are co-conspirators in President Trump's obstruction and therefore should be considered traitors and a bunch of "kangaroos". Thank you GOP. This will be the the punctuation mark to your inevitable loss of control over the Senate.
Only when President Trump is removed will this government start on the road to really working for the average America citizen, and not just the wealthy 1%. This is the beginning of the revolution!
40
@Jeff
Moscow Mitch also needs to be removed. He has obstructed legislation for over a decade now. One man (particularly one who has a minimal number of people electing him and is not representative of the country) should not have that kind of power. The Senators are also guilty because they have permitted this.
22
"Congress needs to stand up for the integrity of impeachment, its own authority and the rule of law."
I am not holding my breath that they will do their jobs.
14
"The Fight Over Witnesses Is Really a Fight Against Trump’s Obstruction
Congress needs to stand up for the integrity of impeachment, its own authority and the rule of law."
Absolutely true. It is way past time for the people in congress to take a stand for us and Our Constitution and the the Rule Of Law.
Suggestion:
Write, phone or email your republican senators,
Refer to this article
Ask them if they really do want to get reelected this November and what they intend to do now that is information is out?
18
@RetiredGuy
I have both written and phoned both of my Senators. I told them to insist on a fair and impartial trial. If not, I would never vote for them in the future. ( I am a moderate who, in the past has voted for the individual I thought best represented me regardless of party.) Instead, Scott had the temerity to put me on his mailing list. I wrote back and told him to immediately take me off it and that, since he had voted against hearing witnesses or seeing documents) he could count on me never voting for him. I doubt he cares but I encourage others to do the same. If they hear from enough of us, it might make an impression. Otherwise, vote the rascals out.
8
Unfortunately, I am "represented" by Mitch McConnell in the Senate. I have written, emailed, and called to no avail. His phone mailbox is full and has remained so for years, no one answers the phone, and letters and emails are answered by form letters months after the fact. He never holds town halls, and only responds to and meets with large donors. I've been voting against him for years, and so far nothing has worked. I'm hoping this year when people see how unpopular he is he will be defeated, but I'm not holding my breath. The people of Kentucky have an unlimited capacity to vote against their own interests, or to stay home, which yields the same result.
7
To hold on to the power that Trump's bigotry and cruelty got them in 2016, Republicans have traded in fighting to uncover truth for suppressing it. They have knowingly and voluntarily lost their way.
And, I hope to their ultimate chagrin, they know not their Benjamin Franklin:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
19
Would you risk your senior management job to do the right thing?
Most people wouldn't.
They'd try to stay out of the bad situation and hope it went away.
Leadership is rare.
11
@Baba Leadership is indeed rare. So is the ability to follow.
@Baba
The answer to your question is yes. I did indeed and lost my job. My integrity is not for sale.
@Baba George Washington would.
Thomas Jefferson would.
James Madison would.
Abe Lincoln would.
Barak Obama would.
1
I was standing in line at the post office the other day as a woman ahead of me was taking up everyone's time chatting to the postal employee loudly, first about her horse (and its other end) and second about the impeachment trial. She had already concluded that it was a total waste of time and that both of the Bidens should be hauled in and jailed.
I think it would be useful to have Republican Senators ask for more evidence and show people that they're interested in getting the facts - not the alternative facts. I think it would be useful to have a prominent Republican such as John Bolton testify to everything he's seen and knows. If there are others, maybe they will come forward, too. Confession is good for the soul.
The woman I heard will never change her mind, but I'm hoping that a large number of independents and fence-sitting Republicans will come to their senses, contact their representatives, and eventually move over to the other side. We are waiting to welcome them with open arms.
28
America has devolved into a struggle between short-term money and long-term principle and indeed survival. So far, short-term money is winning in the fabulous Reagan Restoration era.
23
This trial will end in acquittal. History is clear; partisanship is and always will be the rule on the day on that issue. If the Dems are smart (which is always in question) they will turn their attention to the issue of fair elections to uncover and correct ongoing attempts to rig the November results. There is more than ample reason to believe that the only result acceptable to the right will be a Trump victory. Any others will be rejected.
2
All this commentary is interesting, but pointless. Republicans are on the verge of placing the presidency above the Congress, above the law itself, enabling a dictatorship. What will it take to get people's attention? If 45 gets re-elected the damage may be unrepairable. It may already be unrepairable. It is going to take a herculean effort. We'll need to win the senate.
33
@Al
“Don’t it always seem to go, you don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone”.
People will regret giving up America.
1
Republicans have already shown their cards by their feeble response to Trump illegally withholding bi-partisan legislative aid to Ukraine. Has something changed that we don’t know about?
I may be willing to have Congress drop the obstruction of justice article of impeachment for unfettered access to pertinent documents and witnesses.
4
In my eternal optimism, I fanaticize about a smoke-filled room filled with Republican Senators. The doors are closed and locked and all devices have been banned. The discussion is all about how they, each individual Republican, will be able to save themselves and remain in office. They groan and sniff and make all sorts of unhappy noises, but in the end they finally decide that the only way they can personally survive this nightmare is to turn against the man who has created the nightmare in the first place. And, with the exception of 5 or 6 of the most fearful and stubborn, they make a pact to not only hear witnesses but to decide the guilt or innocence of Trump honestly. It's a lovely fantasy
27
I don't know if the allegations about Bolton in the press are true, but I do know how to find out. Bolton must testify. If we are to have a fair and impartial trial of the President, then a witness like Bolton must be allowed to present what he knows.
If Trumps defense team doesn't like what they hear, they of course have the right to call a rebuttal witness. It would seem at that point the most compelling witness would be Trump himself.
It would then be the job of the Senators, just like in any trial, to judge the credibility of each witness as they deliberate the guilt or innocence of President.
20
@Bruce1253
If they can't get his taxes, how will they get him.
Bolton testifying could end this trial if he reveals that Trump wanted Democrats beyond Biden also investigated e.g. Warren. It would be beyond obvious that corruption had nothing to do with the investigations if the only two people Trump wanted investigated were Biden and Warren. We already know Trump asked China to investigate Warren.
Secondly, having Biden testify is a good move for Democrats as it allows the record to show Biden is in the clear and is, in fact, exonerated by the Senate trial.
3
@Observer
Biden is not on trial and the Senate cannot exonerate him. Trump is on trial and Biden was in no way involved in the government when these crimes were committed and has nothing to offer regarding them. His appearance is simply a diversion.
@Observer I think we should understand by now, 3 years into the Trump regime, that the only thing that will happen if Biden is called as a witness, is that it will devolve into the Hunter Biden Carnival. Both things can be true: Hunter Biden acted inappropriately and corruptly in leveraging his father, the vice president's, name for high paid positions; AND Trump illegally pressured our allies to investigate this for political/2020 gain. Both are true.
However, if Biden is on the stand, we know by now, the only gameplan the GOP will have is to, with the help of the mainstream media and Fox News/state TV, turn this all into the Biden show. They'll ask him about his crack addiction, his illegitimate child, the strip clubs, etc., and we know by now the NY Times and all other media outlets will run all of it, in big letters.
The Dems have the leverage now, the GOP can no longer stomp their feet and plug their ears and say "no witnesses!" anymore, the witnesses are coming. There's no angle in this case that depends on "what do the Bidens know?", they have nothing to add to whether what Trump did was illegal or not. A whole bunch of Trump's inner circle, Bolton included, DO, and Trump has stonewalled the House til now in letting them speak. The dams in this criminal and fascist regime are breaking now, and we do NOT need to make a deal with them.
There is a long list of examples of Trump’s obstruction. You don’t have to stop with the obstruction charges cited by the House in the Ykraine matter.
Robert Mueller cited at least ten examples of obstruction. There are many other examples over Trump’s lifetime.
There is a pattern and practice that is undeniable.
27
Why are Senate Republicans so afraid of Mike Pence? He is a duly elected Vice President, waiting in the wings should the current occupant of the chaotic White House be found wanting in the impeachment trial.
Trump's stonewalling and McConnell's collusion stand in the way of an honest trial and an orderly succession that still reflects the legitimate election results.
Why has the GOP turned their back on Mike Pence?
9
@Honey I think it's fairly simple actually. I think they know he's implicated. I think they know that if they don't keep their feet firmly planted on the "DENY DENY DENY!" gaslighting/disinformation campaign, everyone from, not just Trump, but Devin Nunes and Mike Pence to Kevin McCarthy and possibly Mitch McConnell himself, are all implicated. A huge chunk of GOP leadership has the potential to be swept away if the full facts come to light, that's why they're so desperately hanging on, it's self preservation.
This isn't a DOJ or state court case, they can't "cut a deal" for a reduced sentence. They know that once a domino or two fall, it'll show that they're ALL involved. That's how Trump has worked his entire life, he's a poison, and he poisons the people around him, so he can use them to break his fall. His decades of doing business in New York and New Jersey are full of instances like this, they should've known better when he walked into the GOP offices. The guy is political Charles Manson, although it does seem like the act is coming to an end.
7
@Honey The obvious implication is that the Republicans believe Pence would lose in October. I think their fear is well founded.
Professor you say "every senator should understand the critical nature of this decision for the integrity of the impeachment process, the preservation of congressional authority and ultimately for the rule of law." Do you believe for even a second that Republican senators have the strength and integrity to do this in spite of the oath that they took.
20
I shudder at the idea of the courts getting involved in the impeachment trial in any way shape or form. The Senate has the sole power to try the case and the Senate really ought to be able to stand up an do that.
Republican Senators don't have the spine to stand up to The Donald. That being the case the ONLY role of the courts should be to remind the Senators, playing in their little sandbox, that it is their job, now do it like loyal patriots to the Constitution not like minions of the President or slaves to opinion polls that vary daily.
The idea that the Supreme Court could be deadlocked over the question of executive privilege may be a real scenario but it would degenerate into years of appeals and reviews to determine whether each question could be regarded as covered under executive privilege. [Prof. Finkelstein indicated a probable 16 months to get Don McGahn to testify, but neglected to point out the he could express executive privilege to every question.]
Any and all appeals to Courts to resolve Impeachment trial issues should be refused by any and all courts with a stern reminder that Senators need to stand up and do their jobs and not ask the courts to do it for them.
6
At bottom the issue is not that complicated.
It has nothing to do with executive privelege and everything to do with blocking the facts which would prove his guilt.
If Trump were innocent of the impeachment charges, he would allow witnesses and documents to be presented to the Senate since they would help prove his innocence.
But he is not innocent of the impeachment charges and the testimony of witnesses would help prove his guilt.
It's been standard Trump practice: block any testimony or documents which would expose him. Witness his refusal to release his bank records, taxes and academic records.
69
@JK Yep. It's that simple. It's what Trump has done for decades, he learned it from his boy Roy Cohn: gaslight til the cows come home, and be prepared to tie everything up in litigation, no matter how shameless. That's how they played the House's subpoenas (by not letting anyone testify then), and then when the House voted on the impeachment inquiry, they claim "THE HOUSE RUSHED EVERYTHING!"
Anyone can see what Donald Trump is all about, the guy has been doing ALL of this for decades. Those of us from NY/NJ tried to warn the rest of the country, but weren't taken seriously apparently. Now 40% of the country thinks the sky is green, Trump is a King anointed by God, and that a cabal of hundreds of millions of people all over the world are ALL lying, but Trump is the only one on Earth telling the truth.
I'd laugh at how easy it was for such a dishonest, irredeemably ignorant, and obviously compromised cartoonishly cheeseball comic book villain to subvert the American government and its norms, but it's honestly a little bit scary just how easy it was.
6
And while we are making the argument for witnesses, might we also admit this truth when it comes to the Republican’s’ argument to call the Bidens: if the Republicans demand public testimony from the Bidens and succeed, THEY will be giving voice and legitimacy (where NONE is deserved) to Russia’s disinformation campaign (see Fiona Hill’s sworn testimony) and in so doing aid and abet the Russian’s efforts to up end the 2020 elections. Our Republican Senators have largely shown themselves to be puppets of DJT, but do they HONESTLY wish to be puppets of Vladimir Putin as well? Let’s bring this puppet show to a much needed close!
17
The President insisted his people would be able to clear him, that there was nothing to hide in regard to his "perfect" call and all the events around it.
So let's hear those people testify. Clear our President's name, if they can.
Moscow Mitch already showed how little he personally cares about the Senate's responsibilities when he blocked a fair vote on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, so it's unsurprising that he's also announced his lack of care for conducting a fair and aboveboard impeachment trial.
Are the rest of the Senate Republicans also as careless of their oath of office?
27
“Integrity”? “Rule of law”? Any thoughtful person paying attention to the state of government and politics today has no expectation he or she will witness a display of integrity or adherence to the rule of law. The exercise of power and maintaining Republican hold on same is the dominant force in Washington today. Truth is merely a variable that must be managed.
23
@Ray Lambert Sure sounds like fascism! I only wish we, as Americans, and especially the American mainstream media, would stop tapdancing around that fact and start calling this era of Republicans what they are: a fascist and illegitimate party trying to subvert our government and all of its norms. That Senators are willing to strip legitimacy away from their own chamber, just to protect this oaf of a comic book villain, Donald Trump, really shows how fragile this whole system is.
Our civics and social studies teachers all meant well, but they and we were lied to. If someone as ridiculous (I mean, I wouldn't hire the guy as a weekend night time janitor, much less make a business deal with him) as The Donald could tip everything over, how strong is this Republic?
1
If Bolton's leaked statements are accurate, then the Senate must include Bolton' testimony in the impeachment trial. To do otherwise would be a blatant act of undermining justice and a permanent forfeiture of the Senate's responsibility for oversight. If when the Senate whitewash is over, and Bolton's book is released with damming information that the Republicans have ignored or buried, they will pay a high price at the polls. If the White House blocks the publication of the book then we will be entering a new phase of the Trump regime; the imposition of censorship.
22
Let's stop calling Trumps "know nothing base," no nothings. They do know. Therein lies the problem. They know the the facts as presented by the propaganda machine that is the Murdoch empire. They know the feedback loop that is their church. I don't have an answer. Living here in the south, you see it and the difference is stark. I've noticed a trend where many are now rationalizing. Yet, the other point of view, meaning the mainstream news, is not even given a hearing. And that fellow readers is scary. But, it is where we are.
27
@Phil They rationalize and overlook because they want to continue to control the courts. If they are wise, they would let Mike Pence do that for less than another year.
I can’t tell if Trump’s rabid base doesn’t care, or thinks this stuff shows how clever their boy is, or shouts hooray just because they enjoy the idea that it upsets lib’ruls, but yeah.
They also don’t seem vexed by Trump’s immediately firing off three good-sized whoppers in response to the latest about John Bolton’s book.
@Phil
New Best Seller - All the President's Sheeple.
1
It's odd to urge "Congress" to protect its authority and independence when the Republican caucus in Congress is embarrassing itself in its slavish efforts to stuff its authority and independence into Trump's pockets. The problem here isn't in any meaningful sense with Congress, or the constitution. The problem is the Republican party.
27
We need this president to stop his reckless spending, and his ignoring and obstructing the will of congress in their official, elected roles.
We needed to have started serious work against another round of hacked elections, and to make sure there is not white house support of the same ongoing.
11
Witnesses can only erode the President's case against impeachment. So, if you are committed to acquit (as 53 Republican Senators are) why would you go there? History will be a harsh judge, but in the here and now, there is no benefit for Republicans to add witnesses to the impeachment mix. Our loss, both personally and as a Country. Vote them out.
23
You can't use words like integrity and responsibility when discussing American government activities these days.
7
@Bill 1940
You can't use words like integrity and responsibility when discussing the Republican Party these days.
Fixed that for you.
Does this need to be litigated for every witness separately? Eight months of waiting yielded a judge’s decision that McGann had to testify. Why is that decision not applicable to all these witnesses? Yes, they all held different positions and their access to the president was different, but, if they were to testify, as each question is asked the President’s lawyers could assert executive privilege if the area was truly classified or an invasion on the president’s rights. It is the blanket, total, absolute blocking of all witnesses that is so wrong. Every president including Trump is entitled to certain privileges, but NOBODY is entitled to total, unlimited privilege. It is pathetic that the GOP Senate is handing this president the death notice for Legislative oversight of the executive branch.
And, having waited eight months, why can’t the President’s appeals to any court orders for testimony be expedited? Expecting Congress to wait sixteen months in total would not yield a result in time for the election. Trump has looming legal charges in the holding pen for when he is no longer president. (Assuming nobody can break through the DOJ memorandum disallowing the indictment of a president.) Winning another term would see him sail past the statutes of limitation for many of these issues.
15
If just four out of 53 GOP senators refuse to acknowledge the OBVIOUS need for witnesses then in essence they’re aiding and abetting Trump’s obstruction and by extension violating their sworn oath of impartiality.
17
RE: "By sending articles of impeachment to the Senate without having countered the president’s interference with House proceedings"
It was clear that Trump and his minions were not going to cooperate with the Democrat led house. It amounted to the schoolyard taunt of "make me". They said "No" and what are you going to do about it?
If the Republican led Senate demanded witnesses that was going to be more problematic for which McConnell said not to worry "Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with White House counsel" "Exactly how we go forward, I'm going to coordinate with the president's lawyers,"
Now they challenge the Democrats saying in essence "well you should have stood up to the bully who said he wouldn't have relented, had you stood up he would have relented and you would have had your witnesses." The pure disingenuous ploy was obvious to all as well as they know full-well that it would have required a stone-walled court battle lasting likely past the election.
10
Fear of a tweet by an unhinged reality TV performer is driving the grand olde Republican party to happily give away their freedom to declare that indeed, 2 + 2 = 4.
Yes, nothing more sinister than a tweet, a simple tweet, out of thousands of random tweets from the same unhinged reality TV performer.
How did we get to this point, neighbors?
-C
27
@Charlie
Ask your neighbors who support Trump. It is no longer appropriate to give them a pass on gullibility and ignorance.
@Charlie
Fox News, AM talk radio and the Limbaugh Letter. They live in an alternate world and are literally at the point where they need deprogramming. Not a simple proposition when they believe the same about us.
1
@Charlie
Thank you Charlie for only speaking the obvious.
1
A bit difficult for republicans to indict president Trump on “Obstruction”, when the entire party engages in obstruction constantly by ignoring his many actions against democracy. They may need a definition of obstruction
25
@PM
He has already been indicted by the Impeachment from the House. I don't dispute that comment that the Senate is complicit in the obstruction though. They obviously are. That is what makes a fair and impartial exceedingly difficult , if not impossible.
Republican Senators know all of this. Yet, to a person, they appear quite willing to assist Trump in his obstruction, his lying, his misuse of taxpayer dollars, his grift. The only conclusion I can draw is that each Republican Senator has willingly chosen to make loyalty to Trump far more important than loyalty to country, constitution, or the rule of law. For whatever reason--greed, fear, kompromat, or ideology--each Congressional Republican has chosen complicity with Trump, to be more faithful to Trump than to their country.
29
@kjny
Faithful to their own retention of office with it many perks, feelings of importance, etc. Where did belief in country go?
This author assumes principled disagreement, a demonstrably absurd assumption. There can be no precedents, where there are no rules.
When or if a Republican congress demands documents or testimony from Democratic administration, the precedent of Trump, and the conduct of the Republican senate, will ibe forgotten.
Just look a Lindsay Graham, in 1998, and today.... When you make up the rules to suit yourself, there is no history.
19
You’re spot on. Graham, however, is Exhibit B in “the rules only apply to us when they suit us.” Exhibit A is McConnell.
The Book Deals and speaking deals are going to continue the drip, drip, drip of revelations. The Senate would be wise to get out ahead of them.
13
Congress will not stand up. Or even sit up.
This is the baffling thing by bowing to Grandma Trump, the Republican Senate campaigns for its own stripping of power as a co-equal branch of government.
I fear we are at the 'Dear Leader' rubicon.
We now live in a dictatorship, straight up.
16
The call for witnesses is not a fight against anyone, except getting at the truth.
15
The salary of every member of congress is paid by the people, not by their political party. So how is Democrat impeachment incompetence my problem?
The Republican refusal to allow Senate trial witnesses, rests on the premise that the House Democrats erred when they did not sue to enforce the subpoenas they issued for the first hand witnesses and documents. And so, because the House Democrats were incompetent in their impeachment role, the Republican Senate will not fulfill their duty to hold a trial that will reveal the truth.
The salary of every member of congress is paid by the people, not by their political party.
Incompetence doubled, is not what America paid for and deserves; It does not address the questions that must be answered in a free nation, and it hides the truth from the American people.
3
@rich - "the premise that the House Democrats erred when they did not sue to enforce the subpoenas"
This sounds a whole lot like the abusers "look at what you made me do".
The subpoenas should have been enough on their own. The cry that "you should have sued" is disingenuous on two counts: 1) timing, the Republicans knew that with their obstructions that it would take longer to wind through the courts than there was time before the next election, and 2) they have busy stacking the courts with political operatives.
How is Republican lawlessness in not answering a subpoena my problem?
What the people are don't like those who took their oath of office to the Constitution but who are openly and flagrantly working for their party while we pay them. Chief among them is Mitch McConnell.
10
@rich In all my years of legal practice, I never advised a client to ignore a subpoena, nor would I ever. I have instructed my clients not to answer certain questions based upon potential incrimination, during depositions, and other proceedings, but I would never seek to undermine the court's authority by refusing to acknowledge a subpoena. To do so would be tantamount to saying that my client, myself as an attorney, and everyone else is superior to the rule of law. If we all make our own rules, then we have no system of justice. If Trump is allowed to subvert the Constitutional power of the Congress to investigate, then we have no Constitution and we have no government or law. It is every man for himself, and he who is most powerful, can subvert the system and bend it to his own benefit. As Mr Schiff stated, if that is a state of our affairs, then we are indeed lost.
13
@rich So it's okay to ignore a subpoena from the House?
That's the same as saying, when ordered by a state patrol to pull over for speeding, "Make me!"
6
A vote to hear witnesses is not the same thing as a vote to remove the president from office. A vote to hear witnesses is a vote to keep presidents from becoming unaccountable, dictatorial kings.
I hope that enough Republican senators still love their country enough to take that baby step toward the integrity of our nation.
Of course, there's a reason why President Trump wants no one to testify. The craven can still go ahead and vote to acquit. But please, please, please, senators, have the decency not to turn the office of the president to the castle of the king.
17
Enough already! Impeachment is for the House to decide and the trial is for the Senate to decide. The whole process is a political one and the rules are decided solely by a majority of each Congressional body. Whether or not the Senate wants witnesses is their decision alone. Moreover, if witnesses won't increase the odds of impeachment (spoiler: they won't change even one vote) then why drag this on, paralyzing Washington in the process? Dragging out the trial won't change any voters minds, because it's so boring no one's watching it at home and the Senate gallery is half empty too. Take the vote and get on with law passing and graft taking, as usual. If the Dems believe they have a winning case, then take it to the people in 9 months, and I'm sure they will win a landslide.
1
Eleven million people have been watching.
@MJG
I find your response repugnant. What is boring about seeking the TRUTH?
Like it or not, our forefathers put the impeachment process in the Constitution to preserve our Republic.
The witnesses the Democrats in the Senate (and their media cheerleaders) want to call were previously supeonaed by the Democrats in the House, but those supeonas were voluntarily dropped by the House Democrats when the Trump defense team challenged them in court. As co-equal branches of the government, the courts was the appropriate place for that conflict to be decided. The Democrats then furiously claimed they had already "proven" their case and that a court fight put the US "at risk" because Trump was so terrible that he needed to be removed "immediately." The supeonas were quietly withdrawn and Pelosi went to a vote, then sat on the Articles for weeks - all for pure partisian political theatrical advantage. Then, when world events moved impeachment off the front page threatening to let the news cycle move to something that most Americans actually cared about, Senate Democrats revived the drumbeat (again via their media allies) for witnesses and - surprise - the Bolton "bombshell" was carefully orchestrated and timed to put a new wrinkle in the Democrats efforts to hobble or remove Trump - again via political theatre. Bolton's attorneys claim the book manuscript was leaked after being submitted for review by the US IC prior to publication. If true, it's one more piece of evidence that Washington insiders and partisians, pretending to be "career civil servants" are working to undermine an elected official they do not like. The US IC is now openly politicized.
1
I take it that this is a plea for Republican Senators to rise above partisan politics and their sycophantic behavior towards Trump. I agree with the Professor with the need to maintain a strong respectful separation of powers for the good of our Constitution and Republic. However I am despondent to the fact that some of these Republican Senators slavish support of a man with the negative personality attributes of Trump, have been corrupted in some way to negate them from doing the right thing.
5
Where are the four, just four, GOP senators of honor and integrity who say in light of the Bolton revelation: "Enough is enough and I will now put my country before my seat!"? This would turn the Senate trial into Trump's worst nightmare. Though he would undoubdetly be acquitted, it would be the equivalent on not going to jail for life for a proven crime because the statute of limitations ran out.
6
The Republicans in the Senate who oppose witnesses do it to protect themselves. If the public hears from Bolton and others it would make an indefensible case much more so. I’m sure many Republican senators are struggling with their consciousnesses now. What happens when it’s even more crystal clear that they will go down in history as the people who supported a rogue president and harmed our country so badly?
Better to not hear it and try to pretend it’s just Democrats talking politically.
6
I keep trying to impress on my Republican senator, Steve Daines, that if he truly wants to see Trump exonerated then witnesses and all the evidence must be allowed, because otherwise the "exoneration" will clearly be nothing but a coverup.
His aides sends back useless boilerplate about wasted time and the "sham trial" and "the nation's business".
But Republicans need to get this and do something about it. The ONLY way to clear Trump is to do it right. If that can't be done, well, so be it. My heart breaks for them.
5
“The Senate must be prepared to go to the mat to enforce any subpoenas”
The are going to the mat for Trump, not to save our democracy as you and I would prefer.
5
Nothing will change. The Republican hope/know is that by denying reality and staying in lockstep is their best path to survival. At least for now. In the coming months, hopefully, the slow rot and disintegration will happen. Mitch McConnell will be seen for the destructive force he has always been since there is no way that it can be construed any other way. Call it a cleanse. A few in the base will see that they have been played to their own misfortune. And the ground will shake under their party.
6
What occurs to me now is the unthinkable...that a significant portion of the Senate actually does not understand this editorial. For example, Thom Tillis first voted to prevent Trump from misappropriation of funds for the border wall, and then reversed himself with the excuse that Republicans had figured how to prevent Democrats from doing the same thing later.
This anecdote fully encapsulates that Senator Tillis and others like him lack the basic understanding of our Constitutional Republic and how it works. So this well-taken editorial explaining why obstruction of Congress is so dangerous to how government works, are just empty words to the very people in whom we entrusted our republican democracy.
Our founding fathers weep for the death of their dream, at the hands of such people, our ignorant Senators.
12
This astute column points to the conclusion that the Senate must save itself from itself. If Mitch and his minions short circuit the impeachment, leaving behind unbridled Presidential power, they will be committing institutional suicide that will forever destroy the Constitutional foundation of separation of powers.
Cooler heads, if any, in the Republican Party must rise to the challenge.
7
This piece makes a very important point: that Congress has willingly subjugated itself to the executive branch and this would be another step towards making Congress a moribund body. It's like a political party committing suicide. It's now in the position the New York State government was in which was deadlocked for years by an unrepresentative Senate. The government finally worked it's way out of this chokehold but it took many many years. Ultimately it's up to the voters to make this correction.
5
Well reasoned, deliberative acumen seems misplaced here. Republicans have abandoned fidelity to democracy in favor of prostration and submission to their tenuous hold on majoritarian power in the Senate. Once they lose that, they are done, and they know it. It's a war of political attrition of their base and they are going to lose, just not quite yet (or maybe ?).
In another decade or so all those rural voters who keep electing them will realize that it's not the Democrats, gays, blacks, women, lesbians, Mexicans, Muslims, environmentalists, socialists and such who are keeping them down, but the system itself, which is designed to extract as much profit upwards as an abused populace will tolerate.
Given the efficiency and productivity gains of the last 40 years, the minimum should be around $15-$20 per hour. The reason it's not is because the oligarchs and their lackeys in Congress have been running the "long con" on the citizenry, funding think tanks to offer a continuously changing mirage of ideas as to why greed is good and poor people aren't working hard enough at their jobs while all the wealth of our society seeps upward to the oligarchs and 1%.
What people should remember is that the democrats participated all along with this scam as well, offering only token resistance to keep their hold on their own based.
But we have Bernie and Warren now. When they drain the swamp, at the bottom of it they will find Trump, where he has been all along.
14
@Kip Leitner unflinching, complete and spot on. Well said, for what it's worth.
3
Maybe Trump’s legal team will now be charged with perjury. Is every person connected to this guy guilty of one crime or another? I wonder why that is?!
9
Indeed, let us put the Senate, the nation, and Trump himself out of misery. Trump has absolutely proven, many dozens of times, that he cannot and does not uphold the oath of office of putting the nation's interest ahead of his own.
There is no such thing as executive privilege; in fact, to be president is just the opposite: it is to be dedicated to the nation's best interests, not your own.
7
It is now more clear than ever before that Republican Senators are accomplices in Trump's cover up. Since Trump now says Bolton is lying, the obvious thing to do is to have him testify under oath. The only reason not to do so is to cover up.
7
Republican senators are empowered by Trump, not by their office. Their political careers all turn around him, and they know it. As we saw time and time again, to lift a finger to Trump is immediate political suicide for any Republican. In this environment, why should we imagine, as these pieces seem to so persistently, that any Republican will do anything at all?
6
@Julia I think there's more than personal or partisan political calculation at work here. It's like a cult; these (many of them otherwise intelligent and reasonable) people have allowed themselves to be fall under Trump's sway on a psychological level. I mean really, does Lindsay Graham really need to fear Trump? Do Mitt Romney or Lisa Murkowski? It doesn't make sense.
4
Donald Trump obstructs justice every day and has much of his life.
The Democrats, in all good faith, had to bring about this impeachment. But nothing is going to change.
If anything, the reign of Donald J. Trump has taught us that evil, corruption, lies, money, and greed are more important to elected officials of this country. and to some voters, than justice, care for others, and truth.
The United States has sunken low, and unless there is a change in November 2020 we’ll just keep sinking.
I guess what many of us wonder - how low can we go?
7
The best solution is for everyone to vote in Nov., especially people who generally do not vote. This will change things in a hurry.
1
The Senate is on trial as much as the President. If the Senate refuses to do its job fairly and thoroughly, the people will hold them accountable at election time. Mr. McConnell and the Republican leadership should be smart enough to understand this. They are calculating that they won't risk their own skins if they fake their way through a trial and vote to acquit. I dare say they are out of touch with their voters if that's what they're thinking.
4
"Congress needs to stand up for the integrity of impeachment, its own authority and the rule of law".
Let's face it. Congress "stands up" for only one thing: getting re-elected.
And all of the do-nothing Congresses we've had for the last few decades will continue to "do-nothing" that jeopardizes their precious seats.
13
@Jonathan — abject cynicism is never helpful.
@hoffman
Reality is reality.
The complaint from Congress is not obstruction of justice - which is a criminal matter. Rather, it is, obstruction of Congress, which is a legal nothingburger and is really nothing more than Congress throwing a hissy-fit because they want to tell the Executive branch how to run its operations and were told by said branch to get stuffed.
The Founders made each branch independent for a reason, and Hamilton spent a lot of time explaining why it would be bad to grant the House control over the Executive.
It's a separation of powers situation and the House doesn't have to like it. And it certainly isn't impeachable.
As for witnesses, well, this isn't a criminal court proceeding. Members of the House had the opportunity, means, and authority to call Bolton or anyone else as witnesses, and CHOSE not to do so.
They either failed to properly prepare their material prior to submission to the Senate - or - they have nothing more to add.
Tough. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
1
@Objectivist: Your point that the House Democrats "chose" not to call Bolton and other high-level Trump aides to testify doesn't tell the whole story. The Democrats made it clear they wanted to hear from those officials, but were preemptively blocked from doing so by the president. Bolton said he would only obey a court-ordered subpoena. The Democrats knew that getting one would likely take months. In the interests of time, they then "chose" to take their case to the Senate - a case that includes obstruction of justice. One man's obstruction is another man's privilege. I guess you belong in the latter camp.
5
@Objectivist - they want to tell the Executive branch how to run its operations
How many tough guys tell their families and their employees "I pay the bills, I make the rules"? Well, Congress has the power of the purse. By that Congress does get to tell the Executive how to run its operations as they can withhold its funding. Congress can also override any Presidential veto. Congress has the power to declare war.
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate...." is evidence enough that the Executive is not an isolated power. The Senate, as so well demonstrated by McConnell, decides who sits in Executive offices.
Are you saying that power granted Congress "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." do not apply to the Executive?
The Founders also did not want there to be a King after just defeating one. Its no surprise that the Tories who favored the monarchy and aristocracy are will at it, still fighting for an unaccountable king with the title of president.
2
@Objectivist
Wrong again. But keep trying Frank.
2
The Republican Congress was thrown under the bus by Donald Trump. Not only that, did Mitch McConnell know that the White House had the manuscript while he was "working in tandem" with the Trump lawyers? What is scaring them more than all that is that if they allow one witness....they have to allow many many more.
Check.
17
The fact that our founders set up three independent branches of government ought to speak for itself but, for those who have somehow failed to see the founders' logic, it is that nobody from any branch is above the law.
The GOP senators are colluding with Trump to overturn the heart of our democracy's protection. Once overturned, it will be difficult, perhaps impossible, to bring back. Assuming the GOP wins the fight against further evidence and witnesses being compelled in the Senate trial, which now seems a near certainty, the only courses of action seems to be a) Democratic senators taking the case to the Supreme Court where another defeat seems probable or b) the citizens taking the fight to the street where apathy will likely win.
In short folks, you are about to witness the end of democracy, something a million U.S. citizens gave their lives for. How does it feel to be a part of the most disgusting moment in U.S. history?
26
The final option, really, is for American citizens to come out en masse this November and vote out the lot of obstructionist people in Congress once and for all, particularly Mitch McConnell and his ilk.
1
Republicans have already decided on the verdict, and that isn't going to change, whether there are witnesses or not. But they could better pretend to be fair and objective if they allowed witnesses to be called. And they could likewise pretend that they are standing up for Congress and separation of powers. It would make them look good, no matter how cynical their motives. What the witnesses say is unlikely to have much effect on their decision or the public's opinions in general.
6
@MikeH Perhaps..or likely not. But I want to make it as uncomfortable as possible for them and whatever public is still on Trump's side. If the Republicans can sully even one of their own (Bolton) then I guess it's over and they are the kings of illusion and disillusionment.
Since Bolton’s allegations were not made while sworn in as a witness during the hearings will they have an impact on the trial or can Senate Republicans just ignore them?
1
There may be some poetic justice in all of this. Senators are betting that the largely closed conservative media universe their voters rely on will give them cover in 2020. Some may escape voter wrath, but others won't.
The real justice is what this will mean to the party's future overall. The window is rapidly closing on a GOP that to remain in power will have to quickly move to full autocracy, and America may not yet be that far gone.
10
@John
Exactly.
And all the voter de-registration efforts at the state level, the gerrymandering, the demonization of immigrants , a packed Supreme Court and the embrace of foreign interference has led the GOP to believe that they just might br able to pull it off.
6
Is it not logical that with the 2nd article of impeachment based on
obstruction of justice the Senate should call for the witnesses that were prevented from testifying? To claim the first article is not proven because it is all circumstantial and then proceed to ignore the 2nd article it is the height of hyprocrisy. What is particularly galling is to argue against the 2nd because the House did not wait for the courts to decide the matter, as if Congress cannot ask for any documents or witnesses to pursue its function without going to the courts first. So the proper way for the Senate to address that is to ask for what was denied to the House. and if obstruction continues go to the Supreme Court and ask for an immediate ruling while delaying the trial until an answer is given. None of that will happen obviously because Republicans do not want answers that destroy their defense. But it is up to Democrats to ensure that they are not left off the hook until next November. This issue will become the major one, almost everything else is secondary to defending the integrity of the US as a nation of laws
and responsive to the will of the voters.
14
@Serban
Just as illogical for democrats to rescind their House request for Bolton to testify but now claim he's an essential witness.
One might get the feeling that they did that just to create this "witness" battle and distract from the Senate hearing or to damage it.
2
@AACNY ???? In what trial is a witness not allowed to be called if information surface that that witness testimony is essential to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused?
1
I hate to say this, but our founders waged a revolution to free themselves from a foreign country. A terrible war was fought to end slavery, a hugely immoral enterprise. If indeed Democracy is being threatened by one political party, and a President who defies the constitution to collaborate with a foreign power, and thanks to that party, continues to rule, there may come a time when writing our opinions to a newspaper and voting in a compromised process might not be enough.
27
@Vicki lindner
We also waged a revolution to eliminate the "guilty until proven innocent" doctrine, which democrats insist on repeatedly reprising.
1
Trump was elected President. He was not anointed king, nor authorized to be our dictator. We are the People, as our Constitution states.
Our Senate and Congress should support the MAJORITY of the PEOPLE, which, CURRENTLY, by the way support Trump's impeachment.
31
@Quandry
And keep in mind the majority votes went to Clinton.
This wannabe dictator was elected through careful targeting of the Electoral College, and nation wide voter suppression.
7
@Robert FL
So basically, the Republicans are more adept at winning elections than the Democrats playing by the rules ingrained in the Constitution? The popular vote is not the determinant of winning the presidency, the electoral college holds that power. Clinton's margin of 3 million votes was insufficient, Obama's margins of 10 and 5 million dealed the deal. Clinton and her campaign blew a layup. Blame them.
The issue the GOP has is its complicity with many of Trump's illegal actions and the underlying corruption he brought to the system. It started with W, but was nowhere near as pervasive.
Where does McConnell and his wife end up if they don't protect the President now there are allegations of wrongdoing (aka corruption) with his wife's family shipping concerns and special programs his home state received without merit or fair consideration. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
If those GOP Senators who have relatively clean hands show up, it will destroy the party. The case is clear for all to see with obstruction the most obvious element. The vote to remove is a litmus test for how corrupt and small the GOP has become since Reagan.
15
On a different note. It is odd to see people who wanted to be Representatives and Senators, for what they thought were good reasons, abdicate their power to influence society for their definition of better.
7
John Bolton has quite plainly stated facts that show that Trump is guilty of the abuse-of-power with which he has been charged by the House.
Trump has denied that he told his then national security advisor why the Ukraine military aid was being withheld.
Under these circumstances, IF the Senate Republicans do not join with Senate Democrats in issuing and enforcing subpoenas for Bolton and others with relevant knowledge to testify in Trump's trial, THEN Donald J Trump will have become, whether by design or by instinct, the first dictator to occupy the Oval Office.
That very plain and painful fact would then require that voters in 2020 election who want to preserve the Republic not only replace Mr. Trump, but wash out every single Republican senator up for re-election this year.
63
@SA
I agree. I also find it funny these same gop politicians who claimed President Obama was a dictator think this corrupt and lying man- child is not. It makes you sick.
2
@SA
Remember that many dictators, including the Hitler, took power by legal means, but once in power they change the rules to remain in power forever.
4
@BWCA Exactly! and that is why I worry that if Trump is not removed from office by the Senate, and even if he loses the 2020 election, he will not relinquish his position.
1
This rank corruption of our elected officials seems like a tidal wave. The momentum has been gathering for a long time far out of our view. We witness today how embedded these awful themes have become.
I try not to be too cynical about our common future, rejecting doom and gloom scenarios. Our country’s elected officials have long sought to manipulate the system for their own benefit. That is what is happening now. The Republicans are just very close to a line of no return, having been forced to approach that line by their leader.
The stories they are telling seem weak to all, but does a weak story matter when you have the votes? That is the problem with our modern system of politics. This modern system looks to the Founders for guidance only when it is convenient to the party making the argument. Back and forth we go in the absence of no agreement. The Founders founder in the face of this very real tidal wave of corrupt influences and partisan advantage.
I think our election will be corrupted, but I also think that the electorate can overcome it. And nobody knows which electorate will do so right now.
16
The GOP is well past the line of no return for honest people.
1
I'll say it again. Donald Trump is not the THE problem. The GOP is the problem.
For the last forty years they have had the upper hand in the destruction of American democracy.
I don't know why it is o hard for the 99% to understand. The GOP is for the rich. Period. Forty years of observation as a political news junkie has convinced me of that.
For decades already sold out Republicans have been mis-speaking (lying) for the wealthy. I've watched their lies become evermore bold and deceptive.
The sad truth is that no amount of evidence will persuade them to do the right thing. They are completely sold out to MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.
Prepare for CIVIL WAR.
27
Where in the Constitution is the Congress given
such powers over the Executive Branch ?
Where in the Constitution is the President given
the absolute right of Executive Privilege ?
Where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court
given the right to resolve this issue.
After the Trial in the Senate is concluded it might
be time for Congress to write an Amendment making
the answer to these questions far, far more clear.
As for Trump fighting the Subpoenas, that is his right
under the Constitution, the it takes the Federal Courts
so long to decide the issues is a severe flaw in our system.
9
@John Brown
Despite all the cries of "dictator", Trump has always waged his battles in the courts, which cannot be said of the democrats, who chose to charge "obstruction" rather than let the Judiciary do its job.
3
@John Brown
"Where in the Constitution is the Congress given
such powers over the Executive Branch ?":
Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation.[1] Congress exercises this power largely through its congressional committee system. Oversight also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees;
Congress’s oversight authority derives from its “implied” powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances
Although the U.S. Constitution grants no formal, express authority to oversee or investigate the executive or program administration, oversight is implied in Congress’s array of enumerated powers.[8] The legislature is authorized to appropriate funds; raise and support armies; provide for and maintain a navy; declare war; provide for organizing and calling forth the Militia; regulate interstate and foreign commerce; establish post offices and post roads; advise and consent on treaties and presidential nominations (Senate); and impeach (House)
4
@John Brown
I believe that the term is the "separation of powers."
Republicans say that the President Trump’s extorting an allied country’s complicity to gain for himself personal political “favor” was inappropriate but insufficient to remove a president “overturning the will of the voters.” Instead, they say, “it’s much better to allow the voters to have the information and then to actually take this into the election.”
Obviously, the Constitution does not designate such first term immunity. Instead it circumscribes presidential powers for this obvious and critical reason: the Republican approach would grant unlimited powers to all first term presidents.
The Republicans claiming that President Trump’s impeachment and removal “overturns (his) election” ignores this: impeachment and removal is critical to the Constitution’s checks-and-balances which oftentimes depend upon Congressional subpoena-driven investigations.
Worse, Republicans ignore this: President Trump’s refusal to comply with Congressional subpoenas itself overturns the results of Congressional elections.
Perhaps even more perverse than all that is Republican’s enabling President Trump’s concealing responsive information denies we voters exactly the information Republicans say we voters should employ to decide whether to reelect President Trump.
Clearly, the Republican scheme violates their oath to defend the Constitution and to execute impartial justice.
32
@Bill:Good comment. It's nothing but Republican noise (and sophistry) to distort the meaning of impeachment as an attempt to "overturn" the results of an election. The real meaning, of course, is to hold a president accountable for abuses of power. That said, if Trump were to be removed by impeachment, that would still not overturn the 2016 results, which also included the election of Vice-President Pence, who would automatically assume the presidency. And we shouldn't forget the results of another recent election - the 2018 midterms, which gave Democrats an overwhelming majority in the House
18
The GOP wants to overturn/ ignore the 2018 election - one that demanded accountability.
4
It's not just Trump who's damaging our system of checks and balances, even more, it's Mitch McConnell and his fellow unprincipled Republicans in Congress. Let's hope that John Roberts is more invested in upholding the Constitution.
17
@Cheryl you mean like he did with Citizens United? we thank John Roberts for our system of government, corrupt and despicable that it is.
I think the GOP has become a party against democracy, against minority rights, against the Constitution. There has been a strain of this throughout US history, only it has been held at bay for a long time. The Civil War was the last cataclysmic expression of this strain. But the underlying conditions for it have been always with us.
17
@sdf - " There has been a strain of this throughout US history, "
Yes. They are the Tories of the Revolution who fought for the King against democracy. They did rise during the Civil War. But as I've said before, and thus agree with you, they have never given up on their right place as leaders of the aristocracy. The Tories are still with us and are finally trying to defeat the Patriots while usurping our flag.
11
Thank you for the clarity you bring to the discussion of what is at stake here. This is not about the president this is about the future of the democracy in the United States.
13
@Eugenio
I remember when the TEA Party claimed our Constitution and democracy were at stake. And when Bush's critics claimed it. And when Clinton's critics claimed it.
Funny how we've managed to survive. Clever fellows, those framers. I suspect Roberts understands this better than most.
1
@AACNY
Actually, no, it's not funny. You may think so, but it's clear to everyone else that when republicans spent 8 years slandering Obama at every turn, well, what happens when we actually get a man who REALLY IS a narcissist,
The astro-turf "tea" party is a contrarian construct. Scream the sky is falling, when it isn't. That's how we survived, by seeing things for what they ARE and not by what some hysterical group claims they are.
1
@AACNY
Clinton never came close to what trump has done and even Bush was not as bad as trump.
I hope you are right that we will survive it but I have my doubts the longer this manchild is in office. In my 75 years I have never seen a person that hold the office of the president lie,cheat, and disregard our Consitution as this idiot is doing.
1
Much of Trump's trickery is based on the notion of "executive privilege". I just checked the Constitution and there is nothing in it about executive privilege, much less allowing "Executive Privilege" to circumvent the system of checks and balances.
27
You won't find a right to privacy in the Constitution either. Both were derived by Supreme Court decisions.
2
One would think that Trump's obvious and continued obstruction proves the allegations contained in the articles of impeachment. That the call to the Ukraine is impeachable may be arguable, but obstruction of justice is criminal. There can be no argument.
53
I think we've seen the steady erosion of Congressional authority in favor of the executive branch over recent years. Frankly, being underwhelmed by the caliber of Congress as a whole, I thought it was a good idea - more would be accomplished with a stronger executive. Now I have to question how I arrived at that conclusion. The behavior of this administration is exactly why the original balance between the branches was designed. The only thing saving us as a nation right now is the buffoonery of Trump. However, in the hands of someone more adept and more ruthless, our concept of America would be in great peril.
30
@Robert C.
We need to hear from the Democrats running what are their plans to safe guard our republic.
In normal litigation, when, for example, an attorney is subpoenaed to testify, neither the attorney nor the attorney's client can refuse to appear on the grounds that the appearance may result in the disclosure of privileged information. Instead, the attorney must appear. The attorney may then object to specific questions that call for the disclosure of privileged information but must answer questions that do not. The attorney has no right to "presume" that all of the questions will call for privileged information. So the Senate has no excuse for not issuing subpoenas to John Bolton or any other witness with relevant information based on the concern that Trump may (frivolously) assert the executive privilege in response to the Senators' questions.
25
The more the AMERICAN people see how trump has destroyed democracy in this country the more likely he is defeated. So bring on the crisis. I know lots of trump supporters and their main argument for trump is the stock market is up. So maybe they can be convinced that it will not remain up under a trump crisis.
23
@Vincent Papa i don't think his debased base has a whole lot of dough in the stock market...its all about guns and abortion.
Most press reports and pundit discussions seems to assume that the Republicans' insistence on standing by Trump is driven primarily by sheer political calculation. But I am convinced that there is more going on than this; it feels more like a cult -- a cult of personality, full-scale socio-political warfare, and an alternate reality. Their irrational rants denying obvious facts, and their facial expressions and the looks in their eyes are reminiscent of Moonie cult members -- or worse. The question is why a number of intelligent and historically non-extreme senators continue to behave in this manner, or worse yet, stay silent. I refuse to believe that it is simply raw political calculation for all of these people. Something else, something psychological is going on, and more attention should be payed to this.
34
@Buck Thorn
Interesting comment. Some psychiatrists have written that Trump himself has serious psychological problems. Perhaps these problems exist among Republican senators too. But I believe that their support of Trump is much easier to understand. They don't want to lose their jobs and are fearful of a primary battle.
15
@Buck Thorn
There is nothing psychologically complex about the GOP devotion to Trump. The strongest human instinct is survival and the GOP elected officials will be voted out by a rabid base who support 45 no matter what he says or does. The GOP political hacks simply want to keep their jobs and to keep the dark money coming to them. The question is how do we navigate a divided nation in which white, rural, Christian America has outsized influence in our failing democracy? The Democrats are at the mercy of a b system in which electoral odds are against them, no matter how many votes they get. This is not about psychology. This is about the GOP scoring political wins in a country in which the majority of secular, diverse, educated people hate their policies but are at their mercy. It’s about power. Period.
15
@Patricia Caiozzo , I just don't buy the argument that this can all be reduced to political survival and power. That's not how dictators and autocrats historically have garnered and maintained their support from both the general population and their ruling party organizations. And I see a lot of similarity between them and Trumpism. There's an enormous amount of irrationality floating around in popular discourse, public statements, and political positions, and it cannot be reduced to sheer political calculation -- which itself is quite rational -- up to a point.
3
Obstruction is how you do it and that is clear.First obstruct and then claim innocence when you cannot be convicted due to lack of evidence.
24
I don't understand why Republicans in Congress are so willing to give up Congressional power to the Executive Branch, as if Trump will be the last President of the U.S.
17
@JDW113 Perhaps this is the ultimate plan by the GOP to have Trump installed as President for life in the face of a complacent populace?
13
@Roger
If Trump decides, Congress abides, and the Constitution is changed, such that he becomes President for life, I am one that will be happy of the fact that Trump is a septuagenarian. I can also be almost certain that America will be driven into a civil war, but that's a different issue.
@Roger
basied on his robust and healthy appearance, trump would give us "president for life" of what? 4 more years? Although that is still far too long...
Prof. Finklestein’s excellent essay cuts to the heart of the danger that failure to subpoena witnesses and documents and subsequent acquittal pose for the Constitution’s system of checks and balances and separation of powers. It’s hard to understand how 53 GOP senators could acquiesce in the neutering of their own branch of government by a rogue president who thinks Article 2 gives him absolute power.
26
@Bill Griffeth
Republican Senators are dependent upon Trump to help them with their re-election and thus their majority. Trump is more popular than they are.
Trump's conduct reveals that he does not consider Congress to be a coequal branch of government. He considers himself to be the government and Congress and the courts to be an annoying inconvenience. If 20 Republican senators were actually abiding by their oath to be fair and impartial, they would need no more than Trump's dismissal of the relevance of their own constitutional role in our government to vote for his removal.
20
Yes, of course, we get it. And the only people who think that McConnell will allow witnesses to be called are people who don't remember Merrick Garland. McConnell could not care less about doing what's right. Let's not be naive.
50
The article flows logically until it reaches the last paragraph about Roberts recusing himself and then chaos ensues. If the Senate asks for heretofore unavailable Trump administration witnesses, it would then be sent to the SCOTUS. The Senate makes the decision for witnesses and asks the Judiciary to rule. Roberts doesn't have to make a decision that would require him to recuse himself.
2
"it took eight months to get a Federal District Court to say that Don McGahn cannot ignore a congressional subpoena, and it could have taken eight more for a final judgment affirming that ruling on appeal."
It takes 8 months and then another 8 to get a final ruling
can someone explain why?
Can't the courts be compelled - due to the extraordinary circumstances involved- to expedite the process?
One branch of government is preventing the other from doing its constitutionally mandated job.
Shouldn't that force the third branch to step in quickly and determine who is right?
If not you have the stonewalling WH win, not on any grounds, but b/c they could run out the clock.
I remember with Bush/Gore the SCOTUS took it up immediately- how is this any less important?
25
No, no one can compel the courts to move more quickly. Believe me, it has been tried!
5
@j This is the kind of thing the GOP is hoping for by packing the courts with their preferred judges. A ruling on executive authority delivered 2 years late is almost as good as a ruling in favor of the executive.
10
@j
The Supreme Court acted very quickly to give GWB the presidency over Al Gore in 2000. It can move quickly here too, if so wishes.
4
While the House calculated that fighting Trump's obstruction of subpoenas in the courts was not timely, it is time for the Senate to have that fight and for the American people to see once and for all on which side of democracy their elected representatives stand.
10
@Will
Sadly we already know where republican senators stand: Against America.
If Trump had campaigned on a platform of expanding the power of the presidency, and laid out , in detail, before hand, the areas he thought it was imperative , at least his motives now would be consistent. But, there was never any mention of it. What we heard was MAGA, replace the ACA with nothing, bring back coal, cut more trees, drain the swamp, and build the wall...and have Mexico pay for it. Once in office, he began acting as a tin pot dictator. Once caught in the maw of impeachment for his skulking around trying to dirt on the Biden's by extorting an ally, he again has tried to extend the implied legal authority of his office and cover up his deeds.
If Trump's behavior is allowed to stand unchecked and challenged future Presidents will follow suit, and do whatever they want using Trump's behavior as precedent. This cannot be allowed to happen.
23
@Harley Leiber It is the public's naivete in being so gullible to believe that such promises could be kept or even be achievable. An intelligent democracy requires intelligent voters. An authoritarian regime requires naive voters. Look up past history.
@Harley Leiber Provided there will ever be future presidents : (
"If the Senate subpoenas witnesses, the Trump legal team will once more assert executive privilege." Trump has never, not once, asserted executive privilege. Other people have refused to provide evidence or testimony because the president might claim executive privilege, but he has never actually done so. The reason he has not is that in order to do so he must state what exactly he is blocking and why it is subject to executive privilege. Subpoenas are generally all encompassing, with statements like, "all documents in your possession relating to the withholding of aid to Ukraine." Trump does not want to say. "I am claiming executive privilege on my Feb. 8 conversation with Bolton about withholding aid and my Feb. 16 email to Mulvaney about Ambassador Yovanovitch because these represent private staff discussions about policy decisions." Doing so would admit that the conversation happened and the document exists.
10
Lawyers weigh in please - do Senators have more power to compel witnesses than Congresspeople? What's to keep those subpoenaed from appealing to the Courts now, and put us in the same position the House determined was too cumbersome to wait for? Thanks in advance---
1
@Dennis Holland "What's to keep those subpoenaed from appealing to the Courts now, and put us in the same position the House determined was too cumbersome to wait for? "
They do not, and nothing.
1
I've never served on a jury where an innocent person made an effort to keep witnesses from testifying in support of their innocence. Why is it that Trump supporters refuse to see this?
43
@Panthiest EXACTLY! The fact that there AREN'T any witnesses with first-hand knowledge that can defend the president's actions would show the republicans for what they are.
4
@Panthiest
That is the core question of these times.
The answer lives somewhere in the baffling nature of mankind to follow a leader, straight off a cliff.
Absolutely baffling.
-C
1
Appeals to the "rule of law" fall flat. As I discovered in my own litigation that there is no such thing: federal judges feel free to replace in their decisions parties' argument with utterly bogus argument pulled out of thin air so as to decide cases the way they want to -- not the way they have to; they act as lawyers to the party they want to win. When I sued judges for fraud, they argued that in Pierson v. Ray they gave themselves the right to act from the bench "maliciously and corruptly."
Yet somehow, the very journalists who look into every nook and cranny to find Trump's "obstruction of justice" refuse to cover "obstruction of justice" done by judges right in the open, right from the bench.
"Mr. Trump actually believes he is entitled to use his authority to prevent witnesses from testifying or to withhold incriminating documents or other evidence?" How about my experience of federal judges fooling with evidence -- by adding their own in their decision (as did judge Lettow of the Court of Federal Claims), or by hiding in their decision evidence that would not allow them to decide the way they wanted to (as done by judge Vitaliano in the Eastern district court of NY?)
When judges are above the law (and the last time I checked, "due process of the law" was a law) the press is mum. But when member of the executive is accused of the same -- there is a wall-to-wall coverage. Why do judges get the pass? Why this strange willing blindness on the part of the press?
4
@Lev Tsitrin The loss of your own case does not prove a lack of "rule of law" among federal judges. I think the NYT would jump on a case of judicial corruption if facts support the allegation.
1
@Panthiest I thought so too. It seems to me that the fact that federal judges claim to have to right to act from the bench "maliciously and corruptly" is a Pulitzer-prize story -- squared! I contacted papers -- Times including -- multiple times; submitted innumerable op-eds. But -- no one wants to hear; there are no replies, no follow-up, no request for supporting documents. The press just stonewalls the story; I have no clue why...
While I understand intellectually why these op-ed pieces on maintaining the integrity of the impeachment process are written, let's all be clear, when Trump entered that Oval Office, all integrity walked out the backdoor.
37
What and why is it different now? The Courts ruled quite quickly that Nixon had to allow access to the tapes, again with the election between Bush and Gore, the Courts stopped the count and made a ruling. Now the Courts ignored the subpoenas issued by the House, why the delay in matters crucial to a working Government? Is this a product of a Republican packed Courts?
If subpoenas and documentation are ignored by the Government what of the population? Do the Republicans Legislators not see this scenario is quite damaging to law and order? Worse the Republicans are functioning as a protection agency and the President has and controls full power, no ifs, ands or buts. The end result is that power usurps everything.
9
@Carol
With Republicans to watch his back, Trump doesn't even need the Secret Service.
1
@Peggy Rogers With him playing assassination games with Generals of enemies, Trump is more dependent on the Secret Service than ever.
Assassination is always a two way street at that level, and Trump has stepped into waters he knows nothing about.
His Impeachment and Re-election campaign may end up rendered mute if care is not taken at all levels to keep such away from him.
But Trump has already played that card, first. And I do not think that it means what he thinks it means, and the damage charges ARE going to come due.
JFK was killed by Patriots who were lied to by politicians and their operatives. Lies is the key word there, and the key mechanism Trump works by.
The Math of the situation is not pretty.
I'm for Trump's removal, whether by the Senate or the ballot box. But the Professor's analysis is factually and legally anemic. Essentially, every single reason offered for the proposed Senate actions would have applied to the House as well. The author gives the House a complete pass on its incomprehensible or utterly cynical/political/extra-legal decisions - not to subpoena Bolton; the delayed House impeachment resolution; failing to proceed in court; etc. (I hope the House leaders wouldn't have been given a pass in class!) Now the author wants the Senate to do what the House clearly should have done. Where was the author when we were still in the House? By the way, I think the House has a Sergeant-at-Arms. The McGahn example is inapt. That subpoena was not in the impeachment process. The courts presumably would expedite impeachment or Senate trial subpoena litigation. The analysis is mushy truth and justice rhetoric that ignores or excuses the House's fatal failures.
2
@Chris Mannix
Some truth here, but failure of the House is not adequate justification for failure of the Senate. Two wrongs have never made a right.
1
Very well written, although the argument that Congress didn't subpoena witnesses basically because it would take too long still seems very flimsy to me.
@Michael
Assuming that waiting for the court to decide the matter meant waiting to take a House vote on impeachment, it did make sense. It would've pushed the House vote past the 2020 election. And then if Trump is not re-elected, the House process would have died a natural death.
2
Without resorting to fanciful flights of imagination, the end-game for American democracy is here, staring us in the face. All we know of our government's design is in question and the answers defy the expectations of the Founders whose direction of forming a more perfect union lies in tatters. Their fear of and warnings against the institutionalization of powerful political parties have come to pass and crippled the notion of co-equal branches of government.
When we look back at what happened, we can marvel at how a single man, patently unfit for any office, destroyed the ongoing work of nearly 250 years. He managed this without restraint and with the willing support of one ensconced party. Our republic has devolved into a caricature of mob rule and the triumph of the worst of our collective instincts. It was too easy and too predictable and we were warned.
24
It is time for Senate Republicans to take a stand.
At the end of the president's defense, Senate Republicans should move to exonerate Pres. Trumps, sending a clear and unmistakable message to House Democrats they will not tolerate any further impeachment articles that fail to list a crime or failed to have been passed with bipartisan support in the House.
@batazoid
As many legal scholars have discussed, an actual "crime" by federal definition is not required.
And there is no requirement for "bipartisan" support for anything.
1
@batazoid
Yes, what a noble stand it would be. Junk their Constitutional responsibility (and recently sworn oath) to serve as neutral jurors. Conduct a "trial" where witnesses and documents are disallowed.
How tiresome, that Trumpians continue to cling to the notion that actual "crimes" need to be part of an impeachment. Using that simplistic logic, any president can abuse their power and obstruct Congress to their heart's content. I guess the framers wouldn't care about that, right batazoid?
Isn't the President in a 'catch 22' on these two articles of impeachment?
So far, it is in plain sight that the second, obstruction of Congress, is true. Continuing to block witnesses, to refuse to release all documents -- whether the refusal is from the WH itself of by direction to its team of Senators -- it is itself proof of the validity of that second article of impeachment. The action is visible and clear.
But if instead the WH releases documents and permits the appearances of witnesses with direct knowledge of the President's actions, thereby negating or weakening the strength of the second article of impeachment, chances are those releases will provide further proof of the validity of the first article.
3
Donald Trump has operated a criminal conspiracy out of the White House, first with the abuses alleged in article 1 of the impeachment, then with the obstruction and cover-up alleged in article 2. Those members of his administration who have participated in the plot and/or obstruction and cover-up are co-conspirators. Likewise are any Republican senators who refuse to vote to call witnesses or demand new documents. While the president is considered in some quarters to be immune from prosecution because of a DOJ opinion, that immunity doesn't extend to anyone else. As the facts continue to emerge, all of the conspirators, including Republican senators willfully obstructing the effort to arrive at the truth, should be charged.
6
Prof. Finkelstein brings up a point that Prof. Katyal leaves out of his call to impeachment prosectors to ask the Chief Justice to issue subpoenas duces tecum ('bring documents') to critical witnesses:
"The Senate Impeachment Rules provide that 'the Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses' and to 'enforce obedience to its orders,' meaning that the Senate can use its inherent powers to enforce any subpoena it issues during an impeachment trial."
And therein lies the rub. Prof. Finkelstein suggests that engaging in this exercise will reflect the conscience of Senators deciding whether Trump will remain in office, but where is the evidence that the Republican senators suffer from the pangs of conscience? Indeed, their conduct thus far suggests that even if they had any convictions, they lack the courage to even acknowledge, much less act on them.
I share Prof. Finkelstein's desire to implore Republicans to do the right thing, but these men and women are clearly lost souls, detached from any moral or ethical moorings. Like comic strip villains, the only things driving them appear to be a fantastically outsized lust for power and the fear of losing it, in equal parts.
17
If further witnesses are so important why did the House (Schiff, Pelosi) not seek them by subpoenaing them? They had the votes to do that but lack the votes in the Senate.
4
@alan brown This has been asked and answered. Because the witnesses would have challenged the the subpoenas in court, which would have taken months, which would have rendered the impeachment moot.
3
@alan brown ....Further witnesses are not essential to proving the case against Trump. However, Republican members of the Senate want to hide behind the cloak that there is not enough direct evidence. The only solution is to call them out by saying, go ahead, you have the power to require Bolton and Mulvaney to testify. This puts them in the awkward position of simultaneously claiming that there is not enough direct evidence, but that they don't want to hear the direct evidence.
2
@alan brown — you are indeed correct here! One could hypothesize that if there was an open season for calling witnesses to appear before the Senate, then the exercise would continue indefinitely until the whole nation would be certain of Trump’s guilt, just as they are now certain of his impending acquittal.
The issue, therefore, presently from a democrat perspective, is to have the little piggy squeal in agony a bit longer before it cans itself as a ham ready to save the nation from all that is awful and terrible seeping into our daily lives.
That’s right, half of life is marketing the thing we have to but and the other half is selling it online to someone else after we bought it!
i have a question. can the president be impeached twice with new revelation? one impeachment is in the process now and another could be initiated with new evidences.
1
@amalendu chatterjee Yes, but the Democrats are not that crazy. It would appear to the entire nation that the House is on a vendetta against the President which is precisely what they are about. Forget about it.
This is not only about the Senate’s (the GOP) willingness to rein Trump in from abusing his powers of office but to demonstrate that they too are not guilty of obstruction based upon the declaration by Republicans of their inability to be impartial.
“The Senate is facing a test of the very issue under consideration in the second article of impeachment, namely Mr. Trump’s obstruction of Congress and the institution’s willingness to rein in a president who is abusing the powers of his office.”
12
sadly, the fight over witnesses is a bridge too far, as the gop has already asserted that the law is whatever trump says it is.
7
The components of a calibrated machine need parts that are designed and manufactured with a certain amount of reliability and integrity built into them to function as intended. That integrity is missing.
11
Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin pointed out Saturday during the Trump defense team’s first day of opening arguments that the White House did not challenge the authority of the House to subpoena White House officials during impeachment inquiries. It challenged the authority of the House Intelligence Committee to issue subpoenas without the full House first authorizing an impeachment inquiry. The deputy White House counsel cited Supreme Court rulings to support the White House position. The House should have reissued the subpoenas after it passed a resolution to conduct an impeachment inquiry. This is why there’s no chance the Senate will convict Trump on the Article 2 “obstruction of justice” charge.
Immediately after opening arguments, there will be a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment. If the motion fails, the Senate will vote on whether to call witnesses. If the motion passes, the Senate should invite or subpoena witnesses. John Bolton says he would testify if subpoenaed. Rudy Giuliani has volunteered to testify. Joe Biden says he would not testify if subpoenaed, but would probably change his mind.
2
What Supreme Court rulings supported that position?
1
Pelosi’s strategy of not contesting the refusal of key witnesses to appear in the House proceedings had a clear downside: there is no clear, direct evidence of the President’s state of mind. This has offered (an avoidable) advantage to the President’s defense in the Senate.
The House, in my view, would have been better off contesting the witness refusals though the entire length of the federal courts process (that is, through all speaks) and obtaining the witness testimony or compelling evidence of obstruction. Voters could figure the proceedings and the evidence into their election decisions. The House could have at any point voted to censure Trump. This was a preferable path than sending the impeachment to the Senate, where the downside of Pelosi’s approach has manifested itself.
5
Whenever there is a Democrat President in the future and surely there will be, will the GOP accept his executive privileges like Trump has asserted his? Or would they call witnesses so they can impart impartial justice?
5
@Roger "Whenever there is a Democratic President in the future" is very optimistic. I fear that time to hope for that is long gone. We have a dictator and no one is going to do anything about it : (
1
The Democrats impeached Trump on what they claimed was overwhelming evidence. But apparently not overwhelming enough to get a conviction in the Senate. The Democrats have persecuted the President from the day he announced that he was running and will continue to do so by any means necessary. The Senate should dismiss this partisan farce and move on to more important things.
3
@ehillesum, If this is a farce it's because Republicans have made it one. What kind of trial is it with no witnesses, with "jurors" that publicly announce before it starts that they will do whatever the defendant and his lawyers ask of them. The very fact that the president's lies about what happened have been shown to be lies, proves that he is guilty as charged.
33
Reminder:
The Russia election interference investigation a/k/a the Mueller Investigation was a Republican generated investigation. It was opened by Trump’s own DOJ, by Rod Rosenstein, a Republican, whom Trump himself approved for the position with the power to call for an investigation after Sessions recused himself.
I could list all the many disgusting ways the GOP and Trump himself obstructed, smeared, questioned the birthplace of, mocked, blocked, lied about and harassed President Obama, but I doubt you would care.
@ehillesum
Given that DJT hs blocked any and all attempts to get first hand accounts, your defense rings a bit false. Further - if you think there is any way that the GOP dominated senate would dare go against DJT, you are lying to yourself. Finally - wouldn't witnesses support the truth of DJT's claim? What is he so worried about?
Congress has a full police force at its disposal. Congress is the local government of the District of Columbia.
4
@Matt0147 and once these miscreants are arrested, put them in the DC jails with the rest of the population. they'd be testifying soon enough.
if lack of actual cell space was an issue, a temporary "cage" as we have at our southern border would suffice.
@Matt0147 and what criminal statue would you like them to enforce?
I have written to Sen. Alexander suggesting that for the sake of Congress and for a responsible presidency, that a significant group of Republican senators, say 8 to 10, not enough to convict Trump (because they will not), but to express the displeasure and rejection of Trump's wholesale refusal to obey congressional subpoenas. This is an import gesture to preserve the balance of power and if Republicans fail to do so, they will have endangered the Constitution.
26
@Frank Casa
I've asked Sen. Cruz and Sen. Cornyn to at least vote to allow witnesses.
I got form letters in return.
Ain't going to happen.
Never seen so many grown men (and women) so absolutely terrified of a silly tweet; from a reality TV performer at that.
-C
1
The fight over witnesses is just democrats' attempt to make this about everything but their weak case. Before republicans had even responded democrats were calling for more witnesses. Problem is we haven't had a full hearing on the witnesses they already called.
Let's hear from republicans and see whether democrats made their case. It's unlikely more witnesses are going to change anything.
5
While it is true that more witnesses will very likely just confirm what the previous witnesses have said, that DJT withheld aid to Ukraine in order to force their aid of his re-election, calling them and allowing the Republican Senators l be directly confronted with the evidence is useful. Evidence from White House insiders may have the effect needed to stop the GOP from pretending this is all just a farce. Alternatively, the battle that would likely ensue from the White House trying to block those witnesses will just help confirm the second part of the impeachment, obstruction.
22
Please remember. The government accountability office found Trump broke the law. His own administration. Saying the Democrats didn’t make their case is absurd. Further, refusing to turn over documents and have witnesses testify is obstruction of Congress.
This nonsense about trying to overturn an election is just smoke and mirrors. This is about not following the rules, investigating your opponent with taxpayer funds and abuse of power.
2
@AACNY
Trump was right. He could shoot a person, me, you, anyone, on 5th Avenue and would not lose one vote. None of the faithful would see it as a crime.
The Republican Party will henceforth be known as the Schultz party.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmzsWxPLIOo
I'm amazed, as I was when Congress gave George W sweeping powers to in act war, that Congress--regardless of party--is giving away it's power to the presidency. In this case, it's doubly problematic, because this president is openly threatening members of his party and at the same time is being accused of obstruction of Congressional justice.
If I was a Republican senator--I'm an Independent citizen--I would vote to allow for witnesses, not only because the president is telling me not to, not only because I would not want to give away my congressional authority, but for the plainest reason: that if the two sides of this case have diametrically opposed understandings of what has happened and if it is illegal, then it would be my duty as a senator to get as much information as possible to get to the truth.
166
@Nathan
And what was the business about having Repubs "heads on pikes" (CBS News)---? What is really going on here?
The framers were afraid to give a people's assembly too much power, worrying that even a representative democracy would decline into rule by mob.
Their solution was to fragment the government into separate power centres and distance it from direct control of the people. So federalism divided power between national and state governments; separation of powers split executive from legislative power; bicameralism divided the legislature, intentionally, as Federalist 51 explains, to weaken it; and all bodies of government other than the House of Representatives were chosen indirectly—with an appointed Senate, a college of electors (who themselves could be appointed) to select the President, and judges and other officials appointed by the President and Senate.
In true Enlightenment fashion, the framers imagined they could build a perfectly calibrated machine in which the various spheres of government balanced each other with forces of push and pull preventing any from flying out of orbit. The people might be the prime mover, but the machine would operate mostly without them.
In reality, it is impossible to have co-equal branches that perfectly check and balance each other. What actually is produced is a power void, one ultimately filled by the only branch with material power—the executive. And with the people so far removed from the system, they are disempowered to check it by election. The framers' contraption is a failure. It is time to try real democracy instead.
6
@617to416 - "imagined they could build a perfectly calibrated machine"
The machine would be working very much better than it does in regards to law making, impeachment, and the electoral college, but for one addition: Parties.
Parties are the literal monkey wrench thrown into the carefully calibrated machine that upset its balance, its workings, and its intent of working for The People. Parties were added with no other adjustment. The majority leader of the Senate is a party, not Constitutional, position.
It is time to remove parties from the machine. It is time to eliminate the aisle where representatives sit with the other representatives of their states. It is time to remove party positions. Parties should be no different than other lobbying groups.
7
@Marie
Parties work fine in a parliamentary democracy. In fact, they are a source of strength. Presidential democracies have a history of devolving into dictatorships, with the US, for now, the rare exception. The parliamentary system, while not perfect, is a better designed one, which the US would be wise to adopt.
But that requires a complete re-write of our Constitution, something I fear is impossible without first breaking the country up into nations that are less divided within.
3
@617to416
I should also add that the world's experience with democracy suggests that parties are impossible to do away with. Because of this, any reform that relies on the abolishment of parties is bound to fail. Better to design a system that works with parties rather than preserve one that cannot function properly with their inevitable presence.
2
As a sheer matter of politics the Dems may be better off having a GOP controlled Senate conduct a sham trial without witnesses, rather than hear what the witnesses say and then have the Senate acquit. Running against sham proceedings in November may lead to more results than getting the info out now. In any event the facts will leak from Bolton's book, and the loose lips of those involved.
The House could call the witnesses as part of oversight or another impeachment proceeding. The delay could have the facts dribble out during the months leading up to the election.
10
@Michael
Word.
-C
We all know who/what Trump is however it's a sad day for American to watch the GOP fall in line in back of him. What will they do and say when a Dem president wants the same power? I hope the voters remember this in November.
34
@Thomas Renner. Don't count too much on November.
The fix is being worked on to have Trump "win"(cheat).
The time to oust Trump is NOW.
6
Excellent argument and point well taken. However, has Prof. Finkelstein ever considered the Republicans want to use the impeachment process to weaken congressional authority?
This was the argument I was making yesterday. McConnell's Senate is conspiring with the White House to undermine checks and balances and expand executive authority irretrievably. Impeachment is providing a medium for this exchange. They'll sing a different tune when the shoe is on the other foot. However, I feel the entire episode goes to motive.
The modern Republican political apparatus was never satisfied with the executive limitations put in place following Nixon's resignation. Trump is their revenge.
The question is whether the GOP political apparatus will continue to operate as cohesive single entity. You must imagine at least some Republican Senators are unhappy about the willful dissolution of their own power. Whether through persuasion, coercion, or intimidation, so far these Senators have remained silent. The answer to congressional to authority hinges on whether or not they find a spine.
47
@Andy I would not be sure that there will be an "other foot". If the republicans are successful, we will face a permanently disabled government.
To those who think that McConnell will be shamed or bound by his choices in this situation, take a look at his position on Merrick Garland compared to his position that if a Supreme Court vacancy occurs anytime before the 2020 election, he would move quickly to schedule hearings and a confirmation vote on anyone Trump appoints. If a Democrat wins in November and McConnell is still in control of the Senate, don’t expect him to be hesitant to subpoena any administration official that attempted to stonewall the Senate.
39
@ASPruyn
Why is there a persistent odor of brimstone in everything that Sen. McConnell touches?
-C
We get to see all three branches in play in a single chamber during this trial. Unfortunately, naked partisanship has replaced a sense of duty to protect the Constitution from any one branch dominating the other two. We see a Chief Justice who helped define money as speech, Senate leadership seeking to undermine a fair hearing of evidence, and a White House asserting unquestioned Executive authority.
Arrayed against that are the House Democratic Managers, who lack the strongest evidence for conviction because of obstruction by the Administration. The hyper-partisan realities only play into the hands of the defense by tainting the articles of impeachment with party-line votes. It is likely that the same partisanship will play out in the Senate, first in any votes on witnesses and evidence, and later in the failure to achieve conviction.
Pinning our hopes on a ruling from the presiding officer or the votes of four GOP senators to defy their caucus just shows how far we have fallen from the laws and rules meant to protect our republic.
48
It has been argued that any damage Truman causes as president could be undone by future presidents. His executive orders could be canceled, new laws could be passed and a new political tone could be established. What damage can’t be undone how Trump has redefined how a president can act, how he can threaten government officials and other citizens. How a president can have little understanding of his job or care to learn about it. And if Congress does not stand up for its rights, Congress will forever become an American House of Lords, a ceremonial body that is restricted to shouting “Here, Here!” and “By Jingo!”.
51
@DO5
"Harrumph, Harrumph!"
-C
From now on Presidents of the USA will be able to do whatever they want without limit. It seems that the US no longer needs a Senate. A sad day but when money can buy anyone; dictatorships flourish and laws change to only help the rich and powerful.
197
@getGar
"From now on Presidents of the USA will be able to do whatever they want without limit."
Only the Republicans. The Democrats,like Obama (and Biden. if elected), will waste their terms trying to work across the isle the old fashioned way.
3
@getGar
Not so fast.
Don't you remember President Obama and his 2 terms?
Plenty of money that wanted him kept away. It didn't work.
We can get what we want AND get what we need.
Democrats in November 2020.
1
Claire's op-ed here shows one major thing: we are already in a massive constitutional crisis.
If witnesses are called or documents demanded, Trump will say "No." If Bolton says he'll defy the president and testify, Trump will go to court to block him.
If the courts order testimony or documents, who will enforce the order? The recent release of highly redacted documents from State and the Pentagon depended on people in those departments who believe in the rule of law. Trump detests the law. Under those circumstances Bolton might testify -- but Mulvaney? Pompeo?
We are in a true hot mess.
199
@Gary
The courts can say this is a political decision and leave it up to the Senate and Roberts to rule on any claim of privilege.
5
@Gary
Our only consolation is that if Sanders or Warren win the Presidency, they will act in the same fashion (especially now that everything has been sanctioned by the Supreme Court) and roll back everything Trump has done on the first day of office and then use the rest of their term carrying out their agenda by executive fiat.
10
A court cannot block Bolton from testifying. Executive privilege is not applicable in an impeachment. I think it’s in the Constitution.
2
" Leaving unaddressed the question of whether a president can use the powers of his office to shield himself from accountability will make it impossible to undo the damage wrought on our system of checks and balances by the Trump presidency."
This is the second piece in Opinion that urges impeachment managers to fight for witnesses. But given the united front from McConnell who rules the Senate like the authoritarian he is, I'm sure he will find a way to try to block this, even if Schiff et al try to precipitate this request.
I don't know what's worse in the long run: the fact that the Chief Justice doesn't want to get involved, to the total caving of Republican Senators to the will of a clear tyrant who is bound to become even more so once they move to acquit.
Schiff can try, but he can't move mountains all by himself. The other players have shown no sign that they are willing to fight for the rule of law, even just in an impeachment trial.
93
Watching the Republicans take away the power of oversight from Congress and themselves is amazing. Do they think they will get it back?
281
@John They really didn't want it in the first place? They want to doodle around doing what they do, making their little backroom deals, and glad-handing, and schmoozing, and being fawned over. They may even pass a little law or two (written by lobbyists), and get a say in where our tax dollars are spent - but that's about it.
Governing the country? Keeping the president in check? Heck no - that's too much like work.
15
@John maybe they just assume there will no longer be Democrats in the white house, only electoral college elected, russian approved Republicans after they make America great again.
9
They might be sorry when there’s a Democrat in office who commits a crime and they can no longer do anything about it.
1
If Congress is unable to assert its authority to call the executive branch to account, if presidents can use appropriated funds any way they wish and essentially do anything they want, why have a legislative body at all? It would be a sham.
208
@Lee Smith which is exactly what the senate was under the roman emperors after julius caesar. we are there. it didn't go well then when caligula came along.
to paraphrase ronald reagan : " here we are again".
5
@Lee Smith
Yes, wouldn't Trump and his dreary, stupid Trumpette family just make the most glamorous Royals? And just imagine their many prisoners in the Tower of Fifth Ave.! NOT
@Lee Smith Trump and McConnell today effectively own and run the government. Do you not see that? Tomorrow Trump might bump off McConnell the way Putin eliminates those in his way. Why not? Trump believes that he has the right to do whatever he wants.
Well said, Professor Finkelstein. Hopefully Chief Justice John Roberts appreciates the magnitude of what is at stake for the health of the system of checks and balances. The worst message to the American people and everyone else in the world who are watching this trial is that the President is above being checked and balanced by the Legislative Branch and therefore above the rule of law. John Roberts can strike a swift and decisive blow in order to re-establish an appropriate balance between the Legislative and Executive Branches by calling for additional documents and witnesses to testify. The future strength and legitimacy of our form of government depends on this seemingly simple request.
65
This sentence captures the essence of the challenge posed by the impeachment trial: "Safeguarding Congress's authority and independence is the most important task facing House managers in the Senate trial." Trump will escape conviction, but the Senate can still force him to confront the accountability that witnesses and documents would involve.
The betrayal for which future congresses will most condemn McConnell will result from his refusal to defend the institutional integrity and independence of the legislative branch. His determination to protect Trump from their common adversaries, the Democrats, while a dereliction of his duty to uphold the rule of law, at least makes some sense, politically. But McConnell's shortsighted decision to abandon the vital interests of Congress in favor of a president who will simply demand more acts of betrayal in the future, such a decision simply weakens his own base of power.
Trump's behavior in office reveals the consequence of electing an individual to the presidency who lacks any loyalty to the constitutional institutions that govern us. Anyone who paid attention during the campaign could have predicted Trump's nihilistic attitude toward his office. But McConnell, despite his narrow partisanship, was thought to be loyal to his own branch of government. Now we know the extent of his sycophancy.
96
@James Lee "...McConnell's shortsighted decision to abandon the vital interests of Congress..."
As long as an Idiot is in the White House, Mitch McConnell is, for all intents and purposes, running the country. Mitch - with a 38% approval rate in Kentucky, and unlikely to win any major elections outside 19th century coal country - likes running the country, evidently.
This will end if a Democrat becomes President, or a Republican who is less of an idiot. Mitch's life choices are simplified by this simple equation: If Donald = President, Mitch = King.
2
Judges. Money. Period.
Thanks, Kentucky.
I know the Republican senators are bored, are fidgeting in their seats, and want to get back to whatever it is they would otherwise be doing.
But if they don't do their duty now, they may not have much left to do if the president claims sole power of managing the government as he (and only he) sees fit.
All over America people are getting up this morning to go to work. And for a lot less money and recognition than members of the senate. Why can't the Republicans in Congress do theirs?
Do your job Senators. Don't sit by and witness a sham hearing. Call for witnesses so we can have a fair trial.
365
@avrds The funny thing is, with McConnell in charge, the Senate has no other business - except rubber stamping Trump's judicial appointees. There is a mountain of legislation on McConnell's desk that he refuses to bring to the floor.
11
McConnell makes sure the Senate does nothing for the average citizen.......why would he do anything now?
6
@avrds
They would be a lot less, “bored," if they allowed witnesses and documents, mabe even a tape of the perfect call.
8
"John Roberts Can Call Witnesses to Trump’s Trial. Will He?"
"The Fight Over Witnesses Is Really a Fight Against Trump’s Obstruction"
These two headlines in the opinion section today tell us as a nation where we're headed if the Senate doesn't act. Our Constitution's principles are on trial also, and I fear those representing us under the Capitol Dome will fail in their duty to protect the Republic.
Not must hope here for justice.
92
@cherrylog754
They are opinion pieces. Nothing more. Don't get your hopes up just because the NYT prints pieces.
1
I am just an average Joe (my nickname from my father's friends was "Little Joe) and if I follow correctly what you are saying, there is a deadlock now. And that the only sure solution is though the courts, is this correct. And the courts could easily take time beyond the presidential election. So, the only solution I see from what I understand from this information, is that we will be in a deadlock until November, is this true? So, business can go on in legislation, and the President can do whatever until November? this seems mighty strange, Are Hollywood scrip[t writers preparing a sci-fi where the voting machines are captured by some outside agent in order to add as much pressure on our democracy as possible?
14
No. Read the articles you referenced more carefully.
The lead today on the web version is an article that had me reading the plain text of the Senate rules. Indeed, the Chief Justice can himself subpoena witnesses and documents. The question is, will he? This is not an ordinary trial with rules of evidence. The concepts of disclosure, deposition and all that lawyers do well before a trial are irrelevant. Trump over and over complained that the House investigation was conducted unfairly. That investigation was patently stymied. It is now possible for the Chief Justice to right a wrong, penetrate the obfuscation, allow the last minute revelations from Parnas and Bolton to be considered not just by the Senate but by all Americans. I have served as an expert witness in several trials. I witnessed an episode of gross injustice when last minute evidence was not allowed into a trial because of the "rules of evidence". I hope that the Chief Justice will act in a forthright manner to prevent an injustice in this impeachment trial.
128
@Jeff If you happen to catch the very beginnings of the proceedings, you might have seen Chief Justice John Roberts entering the Senate with a beleaguered expression that really said, "I don't want to be here." As he read the oath to the senators the paper in his hands fluttered and I wondered why he would be nervous (when he's not on trial and has presided over his fair share of them). Will he too sell democracy out to the loudest voice?
2
I am not proud to be an American any more. Viewing the flag brings intense disappointment. Our government with Trump defining our ideals and the Republicans deaf to the corruption, environmental, domestic and international damage is no different from those places they wish to topple in the past. Làws are twisted and warped for their desire for power, denying witnesses, tossing around the idea of using the Courts to delay the very function of the impeachment trial has nothing to do with 2016 and toppling an elected unfit for office President who threatens those who tell the truth as well as those who may seek it.
296
@rhdelp
I know how you feel. I often wonder when I see people during the national anthem or pledging allegiance to the flag, how many of these people give unconditional support to a President who ignores the rule of law, tramples our constitution, and our institutions, all for the benefit of himself?
16
@Vito Yep, so many of the people heckling everyone else for not being patriotic enough during the Anthem, then turn off the game (or leave the stadium) and are out there in our country spewing identical political views to North Koreans. If they could get an absolute dictator-for-life that shared their views, I bet 40% of Americans would sign off on that, that's where we are right now. All the flag pins, "patriotic" nonsense, "support the troops," and thin blue line flags, are window dressing for a rather large segment of our population that basically, in so many words, identifies as fascist.
10
@rhdelp
What is at stake is democracy, itself!
Trump trumps democracy, and he must be stopped.
I wish the Times would focus more on the democracy threat. You might consider that after Trump, a new democracy may come
"Democracy is coming to the USA" (Leonard Cohen)
Perhaps the Times can write of a new democracy and the song. "Democracy is coming to the USA"
2
It’s partisan - this is all partisan - Democrats believe he should be impeached and Republicans do not.
It’s that simple.
Americans who support Democrats believe Trump should be impeached.
Americans who support Republicans believe Trump should not.
The Democrats took their vote in the House.
The Republicans will soon take their vote in the Senate.
The process should end this week - no more witnesses -no impeachment.
It’s time to focus on the election.
The impeachment was another distraction- the fourth time the Democrats have challenged the White House falls short.
Let’s see if the Democratic nominee this time can defeat Trump.
It’s going to be a close election.
10
@JMS
Sorry, but the majority of Americans do not want a rush ending to this "distraction". I don't think that the large numbers of Trump associates who have been indicted qualifies these events as "falling short".
258
@JMS In a sense, what you say is accurate. Had the House remained in GOP hands, Trump's abuse of power would never have prompted an investigation, let alone an impeachment proceeding. But note well the inescapable underlying facts of Trump's attempt to extort from a foreign nation its cooperation in influencing the next presidential election. He might very well have gotten away with it. That this doesn't trouble GOPers is the most frightening poltical development that I have seen in my 66 years. That this can be dismissed as merely "partisan" indicates that we shall "meanly lose tge last best hope on earth."
249
@JMS
No one knows more how political this is than Roberts. Congress has tried to get SCOTUS to do its job several times already.
Roberts is unlikely to get roped into democrats' "more witnesses" strategy, which is just a delaying tactic to drag out their effort to pick off Trump votes.
1
Republican Senators know President Trump is guilty of the Articles charged. It just makes them very uncomfortable when evidence of that guilt is placed out in broad daylight.
Republican Senators knew in the summer of 1974 the impact that the tapes would have on their own political futures if President Nixon did not resign. They would be played over and over in campaigns to defeat those Senators.
Today's Senators know or fear the impact of live testimony and other evidence could have on their political careers. But, unlike Republican Senators in 1974, today's Senators are more afraid of President Trump and his "base."
It really is no more complicated than that - fear.
This chapter of the history of the Republican Party, sadly, will have no profiles in courage.
The next chapter may have no Republican Party as we have known it.
593
@Didier The title of this piece says it all. Didier makes an equally poignant point - it is sad that the death of the Republican party is imminent. I used to be a registered republican but with maturity, I saw fit to change registration. I am now an independent, but will register as a democrat. I look at the Senators as representing me even when they are from a different state. They are voting on issues that are critical to me as an American. They have taken an oath similar to the one I took as a veteran, but many openly display their lack of objectivity and impartiality out of fear for their future in their party because of the power the current President displays. It is a sad day also for our democracy.
150
@Didier
Exactly correct. Senate Republicans will be forced into line by their fear of Trump and his angry, know-nothing "base" unless they sense that their own position is threatened back home by their voters. Only then will they change.
Republicans were also firmly behind Nixon, right up until they decided public sentiment had turned against him and was endangering their own power and position. Then he was gone in days.
52
@Didier I find these opinion pieces bizarre. Completely out of touch with reality. The GOP is playing the long game. Trump will be gone soon. They'll still be here. The GOP will wait him out & achieve their objectives. Their goal is to nominate 3-4 very conservative Supreme Court justices. Controlling SCOTUS is the grand slam that ends the ball game. Control SCOTUS & you win the Cultural wars. Control SCOTUS & you destroy the liberal agenda once & for all. If the GOP can pull this off they control the political agenda for another generation whether they win elections or not. Trump has gotten two SCOTUS appointments, he may get more. He’s moved much faster on lower-court appointments than Obama did. Republicans have confirmed 89 Trump-nominated judges, far in excess of appointments under Obama. They form a conservative judicial revolution that will impact all aspects of American life. This means Trump’s conservative imprint on the federal judiciary through sheer longevity will endure through cases involving state gun regulations, the environment, immigration, & abortion. The legal arm of the conservative movement is the best organized & most far-seeing sector of the Right. They truly are in it — and have been in it — for the long term goals. Control the Supreme Court, stack the judiciary to the sky, obstruct when necessary & you destroy the progressive movement, no matter how popular it is, no matter how much legislative power it has. Nothing will get in the way of that goal.
27
Anyone paying attention already knows Trump is guilty as charged of obstruction along with using the presidency and the treasury to influence a foreign power to help his campaign. This isn't a criminal trial where the conclusion has to be beyond a sliver of doubt.
Of course the president shouldn't be allowed to enforce his will on the investigation of his own crimes, but the GOP isn't concerned about how they are viewed by history or how their actions affect our democracy.
It is already obvious that it will be entirely up to the American people to impose a verdict on our president's behavior. If we fail to do so a few months from now, we will richly deserve the government we have- a government controlled by people who put personal interest far above that of the public.
We passed the test in the mid-terms, so there is hope.
387
@alan haigh - Yes, and 'executive privilege' has no application if invoked to cover up a crime; since the GAO has said Federal Law regarding impoundments was violated by Forever Impeached 45*, executive privilege is not a refuge, and the Chief Justice can say so, dispensing with any claims the White House might believe it could assert in a courtroom.
19
@alan haigh The Republicans are succeeding in bypassing law and order regularly.
They are not afraid of what will be said about them in the future.
They know the conquerors write the history books.
11
@alan haigh I object to the idea that "we will richly deserve the government we have". We are undergoing an intense political battle with deep-pocketed, scorch-the-earth oligarchs, right-wing propaganda machines and their willing consumers, corrupt domestic and foreign interests, and cowardly congressmembers willing to do anything to keep their jobs and cash flow, on one side, and on the other side are the rest of us worked up in frenetic opposition trying our best to preserve what we thought was a vibrant Democracy, not only for ourselves, but for those who are voiceless in these dark times.
13
But to some degree, this contradicts another Op-Ed that has just appeared, calling upon the Chief Justice to subpoena witnesses, given that the Senate refuses to do so.
However, you raise, indirectly, a point that the other Op-Ed doesn't: What if the Chief Justice subpoenas witnesses--and they refuse to appear even so?
Of course it is important, as you say, for the Senate to push back against the imperial presidency--but plainly, it won't.
And even if it did, that would get us only so far, if the ultimate result is acquittal, which it certainly will be. Only removal from office can send a loud enough message against the kind of president and presidency we have had for the last 3 years. The American people can't be expected to pay much attention to separation of powers questions.
Does anyone else think that the Trump presidency demonstrates that, despite the remedies you and the other Op-ed prescribe, the system is tilted too far toward executive power? And that the Constitution needs to be amended to address this problem?
10
Are we seriously suggesting that a Congressional subpoena should not be issued because Congress does not have a jail? The Constitution explicitly gave Congress the authority to conduct an impeachment; any person who has sworn an oath to the Constitution should be available to enforce the subpoenas which arise. And we do not need judicial review since the Chief Justice is already presiding.
These are fictitious barriers erected to obstruct.
81
Now is the time for Senators to put representation ahead of party.
What if a group of moderate senators (say 4 each Democrat and Republican) to declare themselves independent? Maybe Manchin, Heitcamp, Tester, and Donnelly as Ds, and Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Braun and/or one more as Rs) join Angus King as a 9 vote swing block? Freed from the shackles of party fealty, they could stick together and vote to defend the integrity of congress and the constitution on key issues like this (defending separation of powers).
Far fetched? Well... This group have little to lose politically; in fact they may improve their electoral prospects. Whatever they lose in party perks (senate leadership positions) they would gain in national respect and status as deal-makers.
It just seems like one way to break the fever of party politics being driven to extremes.
Why not?
40
@Matt
Ii would be wonderful if the re-alignment of these people meant that McConnell gets removed as Senate leader.
2
@Matt Heitcamp and Donnelly were defeated in 2018.
1
@Matt
Please wake up. Donnelly and Heitcamp lost their seats as Dinos in Blood Red States and there is nothing "moderate" about the others. Angus King is a power unto himself.
What does National respect have to do with local politics?
1