We spent a lot of time on the Impeachment Watch Podcast wondering about the President's state of mind as he prepares on Wednesday to become the third president in US history to be impeached.
We also discussed how there's no drama left in this impeachment since the end result feels like a foregone conclusion.
Listen: CNN political director David Chalian ran through what to expect in Trump's impeachment week along with CNN White House reporter Sarah Westwood and me.
Senate trial will be Baroque, not blockbuster, if done by the rules
What will an impeachment trial look like? We don't know. But I spent some time last week looking at the 26 standing rules that senators will start from. We talked to multiple experts in Senate parliamentary procedures. What Trump may not realize is this is a baroque affair.
There's an announcement each morning to call the proceedings to order.
It begins: 'Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye on pain of imprisonment, everyone must remain silent.'
Senators ask questions by passing notes to Chief Justice John Roberts.
Senators can vote to change any rule they want, but all this is based on the trial of Andrew Johnson. It's some antiquated stuff.
What Mitch McConnell does not have is 51 votes
CNN's Phil Mattingly has a piece on the latest in negotiations (or lack thereof) between Republicans and Democrats on a Senate trial.
Key line: With 51 votes, McConnell can do most anything he wants in the looming Senate impeachment trial. But at this stage, McConnell doesn't have the commitment of at least 51 of the 53 senators in his conference to do anything. That means what happens next -- and the extent of Schumer's actual leverage right now -- are still unknowns.
Key line: With 51 votes, McConnell can do most anything he wants in the looming Senate impeachment trial. But at this stage, McConnell doesn't have the commitment of at least 51 of the 53 senators in his conference to do anything. That means what happens next -- and the extent of Schumer's actual leverage right now -- are still unknowns.
Did House Democrats make a big mistake?
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wants new witnesses so Democrats can re-litigate the merits of this case. Many Republicans have heard enough.
Sen. Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican, put this line of thinking very well: "This is a political exercise. Let's just get it over with."
Schumer has a wish list of witnesses he'd like featured in a Senate impeachment trial. Funny thing -- they're all witnesses House Democrats decided not to pursue earlier this year.
Why House Democrats didn't wait for these witnesses
California Rep. Adam Schiff and Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee decided to push forward with impeachment rather than wait for the courts to compel people like acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney or former national security adviser John Bolton to disregard Trump's claim of privilege. Court review of these things can take months or longer.
Bolton, in particular, said he had pertinent information and all but begged to testify.
Asked if he thought the House should have gone to court to try to compel the testimony of the four witnesses he's requested, Schumer said he wouldn't "second guess" the House but added there is "no good argument" not to have these witnesses testify at a possible Senate trial "if you're interested in facts."
Minds are not being changed
On the other hand, given that nothing in the impeachment testimony, despite credible testimony from career public servants, appears to have changed a single Republican's mind, there's some logic to Democrats' strategic decision to get on with things.
Courts take forever
In fact, the case over whether former White House counsel Don McGahn should testify about former special counsel Robert Mueller's findings predates the Ukraine scandal. The next court date is January 3, by which time Trump will already have been impeached.
Flawed case?
Republicans like White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said Schumer's request for witnesses was evidence the House did not prove its case.
"House Democrats violated their own rules and any historical precedent of fairness while conducting their illegitimate impeachment sham. Sen. Schumer's letter is just more proof that the only evidence the House produced, actually proves President Trump did nothing wrong," she said.
Of course, the House could only produce evidence in the form of testimony from witnesses who respected their subpoenas.
There's actually plenty of evidence against the President, but every time Republicans can attack the process, they can try to chip away at public support for impeachment.
Giuliani to The New Yorker: 'I needed Yovanovitch out of the way'
Confirming testimony by diplomats at the impeachment hearings, Rudy Giuliani, in comments to The New Yorker, tied the ouster of US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch to his effort to dig up dirt on the Bidens.
"I believed that I needed Yovanovitch out of the way," he said. "She was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody."
Pulling Yovanovitch from her position is not among the impeachment articles, but Giuliani's admission certainly plays into the larger narrative about his and Trump's pursuit of investigations to hurt his political rivals.
Busy year for fact checkers
President Donald Trump more than doubled the number of false or misleading claims he made this year, to more than 15,000, according to The Washington Post's Fact Checker.
No comments:
Post a Comment