Personally, it's better to acquit.

Witnesses add unpredictability. If they have the votes they should acquit the President and declare victory.



Yes.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Jan 30 2020 11:15pm

Honestly I think that they've used up so much oxygen at this point that they can simply conclude the trial without witnesses and nobody in America will change their opinion
in a couple weeks nobody will remember anything about the spat over witnesses at the trial.

Is it a good precedent to set to block all witnesses at the Senate trial?

Also, prediction on Roberts: If Murkowski votes no, Roberts will vote Yes on witnesses. He will want that personal legacy point and to try and preserve the integrity of the Senate.

What precedents could be set by this impeachment beyond pushing the envelope of partisanship? The only precedent is that the next democratic president against a republican house, whenever that happens, will be impeached. All the details of the impeachment hearings and trial are just noise beyond that.

And no, if Murkowski votes no, it becomes 51-49 and doesn't go up to a tiebreaker. If Murkowski votes yes, it becomes 50-50, and while Roberts has the option, he will not vote. SCOTUS justices are predictable and Roberts absolutely isn't about to make any bold, controversial power grabs as a stunt. He's going to do whatever is seen as the most neutral and apolitical option, which is to not choose sides, not state opinions and not cast votes.

To answer your question, I think that it is setting a bad precedent in multiple ways. The GOP is not only saying they are okay with this president and future presidents unlawfully withholding funds from foreign countries to investigate political rivals, they are also saying that a majority in the Senate means that you can block a full and open trial from taking place in front of the American people, even if the majority of the American people (both Republicans and Democrats) want witnesses.

I meant to say that if Murkowski votes yes, I think Roberts will cast a tiebreaking yes vote for a personal legacy point. History will look upon this debacle in the Senate unfavorably, and Roberts won't want his name joined with the Republican Senators. He's a Supreme Court Justice: he's all about fairness, principle, and hearing all the information before reaching a decision. He'll vote Yes on witnesses if he is forced to decide.

So then why does Biden need to be investigated in TRUMP'S impeachment trial?



It's difficult to say. We're going to hear from Bolton ANYWAY through his book so I don't think allowing him to testify would be particularly damaging. But I agree with bogie...there is some layer of unpredictability and if you have the votes to acquit, you should just do that.



I would cut my dick off if that happened. There's no way Roberts gets involved in the petty infighting that occurs in the Senate

This post was edited by thundercock on Jan 31 2020 12:05am

The only reason is because Black Xistenz and other Republicans are saying it's only fair that if Bolton or others are called to testify, that Biden is, too. I also think it's a ridiculous deal as this is indeed Trump's trial, but I'd agree to it because I think it would be better overall for the country.

Also, Republicans will just dismiss everything Bolton says in his book unless its under oath. Of course, I don't think they will let him do that, either.

I'm bookmarking this, and in the off-chance he *does* get involved... Well, let's just say you'll need a new JSP handle.

Democrats' bid for new Trump impeachment witnesses likely to fall short

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment/democrats-bid-for-new-trump-impeachment-witnesses-likely-to-fall-short-idUSKBN1ZT18E







This ofc makes me wonder excatly how much damage this will do to the Dems, if the acquittal does go through.

I wouldnt consider it impossible for Roberts to cast a tie-breaking vote in favor of additional witnesses, but I dont think it's likely.

At the end of the day, what Roberts is most concerned with is the legitimacy and reputation of the Supreme Court. Back when he surprisingly broke with conservatives and saved Obamacare, many pundits said he most likely did this to save the SCOTUS from being dragged into the partisan quagmire and stay above the fray. I assume that the same will again be his primary goal here, not scoring points for his personal legacy.


When it comes to the precedent this trial will set, I think that the main legacy will be a lesson for future generations of politicians: it's pointless to push ahead with an impeachment under a split Congress unless you have really good reason to believe that the President's party will break with him. This was not a realsitic prospect at any point during Trump's impeachment. The Democrats' attempt at gaining political ground by pushing ahead with impeachment anyway will ultimately have been in vain, and that is what imho will be the long-term legacy of Trump's impeachment.