Posted on 01/22/2020 8:16:58 PM PST by yesthatjallen
“Because the rules resolution McConnell released a couple of days ago allowed for a motion to dismiss.”
It allows for it - the difference is that it isn’t automatic - or “guaranteed”
I think the defense will choose whichever course is most likely to produce a unified GOP vote, namely, a full trial.
A unified GOP vote to dismiss, acquit, or whatever, sends the public the desired message that this entire impeachment was never anything but a naked partisan attack - a very bad look for the Democrats. If a few Republicans vote with the Democrats it weakens the message of exoneration substantially, and legitimizes the Democrats impeachment/removal attempt as “bipartisan”.
The defense will want to court those three or four squishy Republican senators by whatever means necessary; in this case, by allowing a trial and at least considering the possibility of witnesses.
Following a trial, the pressure on these squishy Republicans to conform intensifies exponentially, because a thumbs down vote effectively becomes a final “guilty” vote. They would be branded forever as traitors if they vote “guilty” with the Democrats.
A vote to dismiss before a trial does not put a lot of pressure on these squishy senators to conform to the Republican side, because in effect, a thumbs down would not mean “guilty” it would simply mean “let’s proceed to trial and hear more evidence”, and would brand them as “pain-in-the-asses” (which they already are), rather than as traitors.
I think McConnell knows what he has to do to get all 53 GOP senators in line and the White House has agreed to follow his lead.
This is the smart play - do whatever it takes to humiliate the Democrats with a solid wall of 53 Republicans - proving this was nothing a disgusting political attack by the Democrats all along. If they play it right, they will even get some Democrats who want to show that they were not part of this political Schiff show.
And another thing: the Democrats’ constant cry for more witnesses and more documents is in large part bluff. They want to make the defense look like they are hiding something by asking for things they think the defense won’t concede.
But as we’ve seen, they often back away when the defense calls their bluff. Case in point; they demanded the whistleblower he heard until the White House agreed, then they did a 180° and took the position the whistleblower must not testify.
When and if the defense agrees to more witnesses and evidence, I think we will see some quick back-peddling by the Democrats because after all, they are the guilty ones - more evidence and testimony hurts them, not the President.
Just me myself and my lonesome, I think that since the charges so patently do not include any impeachable crimes, McConnell should do what’s necessary to simply dismiss them now on these grounds. The so-called swishy members can I am confident he brought into line now with their antics checked. Just my thoughts I’m no expert about the senste but I do have knowledge of the constitution. Anyway this is just one person’s thinking and so far McConnell hasn’t asked me for any advice anyway. Ha!
“...so far McConnell hasn’t asked me for any advice anyway. Ha!”
Me either!
I obviously don’t know what “should” happen, I’m just guessing that since it looks like they are NOT opting for a quick dismissal, the reason is probably that McConnell is not sure he has the votes.
Going for a dismissal and failing would not be a good “look”, and would weaken the President’s position. The fake news would have a field day. It’s not worth the risk.
Proceeding with the trial not only avoids that risk, but is actually a show of strength. It shows the President has nothing to fear from John Bolton, and it calls the Democrats’ bluff.
In a game of “chicken” over witnesses, the Democrats may well wind up being the ones who flinch. After all, they are the guilty parties here - they are the ones who stand to lose if more information comes out.
Hop fully the early reports of the judiciary committee stating in business through any impeachment trial - will pan out. It’s essential that the judicial. vacancies be filled with good people.
Yes, hopefully the judicial committee stays in business throughout the trial.
But in any case, I don’t expect the trial to last more than a few weeks. Like I said, the Democrats don’t really want more evidence - they are asking for things hoping the White House will refuse, so they can call it a cover up.
Consider this scenario: the Democrats have been demanding that John Bolton testify. The White House has invoked executive privilege. The Democrats have been crying “cover up” and have scored political points.
Now, let’s suppose that since the President has nothing to hide, the defense team decides to let Bolton testify after all, rather than let the Democrats have the “cover up” narrative. Allowing Bolton to testify not only takes away the Democrats’ cover-up narrative, but it also signals that the White House has nothing to fear from Bolton’s testimony.
The result is that Bolton’s testimony suddenly becomes worthless to the Democrats over night - they now know they are not going to get a “smoking gun” from John Bolton, so they lose interest in him and demand something else instead.
But they can only pull that kind of bait-and-switch a few times before even the squishiest of GOP Senators lose patience. I doubt it will be more than a few weeks before McConnell has all 53 GOP Senators in line, and at that time he will force a vote.
He only needs 33 votes to acquit, but he will wait until he has all 53 GOP senators and probably a handful of Democrats as well.
The President’s defense team knows that Democrats are headed for certain defeat here, but their goal is to make sure it is a humiliating defeat, and thus a complete exoneration for the President.
In what court would a motion to dismiss be a requirement?
The rules allow for it, as you said, which gives the defense the liberty to enter the motion if they want to same as any courtroom trial. They don’t want to.
“In what court would a motion to dismiss be a requirement?”
In the Senate rules governing the Clinton impeachment trial, it was agreed in advance that after both sides presented their arguments, a vote whether or not to dismiss would be required - automatically triggered.
As I understand it, they believed an automatic vote would encourage bipartisanship, as opposed to a Democrat having to make the motion to dismiss in the trial of a Democrat President.
In the Clinton impeachment, bipartisanship was of great concern to Republicans, who bent over backwards to avoid even the appearance of partisan motives.
The current impeachment is completely different - the Democrats have no shame - they don’t care how obviously partisan this impeachment is, or who knows it.
I didn’t know that about the Clinton impeachment rules. It’s true that this impeachment is different and in a lot of ways. For starters they enumerated some crimes against Bubba.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.