Public campaign to discredit Bolton preemptively begins in 3…2…1
If you mean in a Senate trial, it’s because the Senate decides what the rules for the trial are, and a majority of Senators might decide there will be no witnesses. The trial could be as simple as:
- House managers have X hours to present a case without witnesses
- Defense has X hours to attack the case
- Senate debate
- Vote to acquit
Edit: Note that there were no witnesses called for the Clinton trial. The House managers did depose witnesses, but the Senate opted only to let portions of the videotapes be played, without live testimony or cross-examination. So it would not be a tremendous diversion from the norm to say there isn’t any need to have witnesses. The problem in this case is that a number of witnesses were preventing from testifying in the House, and maybe a handful of R Senators don’t like the way that looks.
Sharpe
5474
There is one more wrinkle here, that I think has low odds, but better than zero: the Senate votes no witnesses, but then when presenting their case, the House Managers petition the Presiding Judge (John Roberts) to allow relevant witnesses. There are centuries of precedent in the Anglo-American legal system that Judges, when presiding over a trial, have the final word on witnesses. There is unfortunately a high chance Roberts will “defer” to the Senate on an issue like this, but there is no rule he has to; the Constitution clearly says the “Chief Justice shall preside” over impeachment trials and there is a lot of precedent as to what “presiding” over a trial means and it definitely includes making rulings on witnesses (and also issuing subpoenas for witnesses to appear).
I consider this a bit of a wild card; but it’s a possibility. Not a probability in my view, but a possibility.
I was thinking more for the House, bouncing off Pyperkub’s comment that Schiff should subpoena Bolton. I recall some legal wrangling over bringing him in as a witness but the details escape me.
… And to use Trump’s name in a sentence with Jesus’ name that isn’t “Jesus, is Donald Trump a shitty President!” ;-)
The issue there was time to work its way through the courts. The House decided to construe refusal to testify as evidence of obstruction rather than fight to enforce subpoenas on the grounds that it would take months and the issue (election interference) is to urgent.
It seems to be the case that Roberts — as Presiding Judge — can rule unilaterally on whether a subpoena can be enforced, without appeal to any other court. I suppose the Dems’ best case scenario is the Senate votes to allow witnesses, they subpoena the usual suspects (Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton), the White House claims privilege, and Roberts rules against the privilege claim. Much faster than wading through a court fight. But it hadn’t occurred to me that the Dems could challenge a rule against witnesses and force Roberts to decide.
At minimum, at this point, the Dems get the spectacle of Republicans in the Senate, and the White House, refusing time permit any testimony by anyone. That is not a good look for the R team.
Preet Bharara and Ann Milgram discussed Robert’s ability to influence the proceedings and noted a few things. First, the Senate can vote to overrule any decision he makes. Second, because of that potential loss of face / exhibition that Roberts has no actual power in the trial, Roberts will likely be very passive and not make any sort of “activist” decision that would counter the majorities will.
Listen at about 7:45 where they read out the current rules and interpret them.
Sharpe
5479
The thing is, the “rules” they are quoting there are the Senate rules, internal rules adopted by the Senate, not rules from the Constitution. The Constitution does allow the Senate to write it’s own rules for its internal proceedings but those rules cannot violate the Constitution. For example, the Constitution clearly states that every state shall have “equal suffrage” (equal voting power) in the Senate; the Senate could not write rules that say Senate votes from blue states don’t count, or things like that.
The Constitution also clearly states the Chief Justice “shall preside” over an impeachment trial and “preside” in this context has a specific definition with a lengthy legal history. So I feel pretty strongly that Roberts does in fact have Constitutional power to make rulings on witnesses.
However, where I will agree with the podcast is the idea that " Roberts will likely be very passive and not make any sort of ‘activist’ decision that would counter the majorities will." - That’s probably correct. But the issue is how Roberts chooses to exercise his powers IMO, not whether or not he has those powers.
But, but, but, I do think the House Managers should force the issue if the Senate votes against witnesses. They should petition Roberts to allow witnesses. Part of the reason I say this is that part of the Petition process will be to “lay a legal foundation” for the witnesses, presenting evidence as to what the witnesses knows and will likely testify to. Making a formal presentation like that I believe helps both the legal and the political cases against Trump and if both the Senate and Roberts rule that they are rejecting those witnesses that’s a strong political argument against the entire GOP IMO.
(This is also why I don’t fear the whole “Hunter Biden as a witness” thing - I believe the Dems can move to exclude the witnesses due to lack of relevancy and prejudicial impact, and force Roberts to make a ruling as to whether there is sufficient legal foundation to allow Biden to testify. This is a good example of the difference between the media and a legal proceeding; the GOP keeps chanting “Hunter Biden! Hunter Biden!” but in court they would actually have to introduce evidence to show he has relevant testimony that would outweigh any prejudicial impact or delay of the proceedings and since there is no evidence directly connecting him to Trump’s misdeeds I don’t see how the GOP comes even close to the threshold for either one of the Bidens.)
antlers
5480
I think there would be a lot of political risk for senators voting to overturn a ruling Roberts makes in the impeachment trial, and I don’t think Roberts is interested at all in carrying water for Trump in the trial.
Timex
5481
Yeah, I’m not sure that all of the Republicans in the Senate would vote to overule the chief justice of the supreme Court.
Menzo
5482
I guarantee you they would.
Tim_N
5483
Conspiracy theory: war with Iran is the only thing Bolton would accept from Trump to get him to agree to lie for him on TV about the ukraine thing.
RichVR
5484
Pls send list. Only real Republicans. You can also make a list of Trump supporters.
We all knew this was coming, but …
DOJ now recommending jail time for Flynn. They say he stopped cooperating, actively undermined the cases he was supposed to be cooperating on, doesn’t take responsibility for his actions, so he should not get credit for cooperation. So they recommend…0-6 months.
Criminal justice is broken.
The headline of that article says they have the votes, while the actual article says they’re ‘on the verge of’ having the votes and ‘hope’ they have the votes.
Edit: Romney on board too.
magnet
5489
What did you expect? He pled guilty to one count of lying to investigators. James Wolfe pled guilty to the same, and got a two month sentence. Martha Stewart forced a trial, was found guilty of multiple counts, and got five months.
Rick Gates pled guilty to lying and conspiracy, fully cooperated with investigators, and got 45 days.
If Flynn gets 4-6 months, I wouldn’t be surprised. I’m sure Flynn’s pseudo-cooperation didn’t make life easier for investigators, but pseudo-cooperation is not a crime.
Don’t break the law, rich people! The consequences are unimaginable!
And I can see him pardoning Manafort during the Iran thing…
