Democrats to Skip Court Fights Over Impeachment Witnesses

[swag]

Source: New York Times


By Nicholas Fandos
Oct. 28, 2019
Updated 2:16 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — House Democrats will forgo using the federal courts to try to compel testimony from recalcitrant witnesses in their impeachment inquiry, a top Democratic chairman said Monday, warning that lawmakers would instead use the lack of cooperation to bolster their case that President Trump has abused his office and obstructed Congress’s investigation.

Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, confirmed the shift in strategy after Charles M. Kupperman, the former deputy national security adviser and one of Mr. Trump’s “closest confidential” advisers, defied a House subpoena for testimony that had been scheduled for Monday morning.

The White House on Friday said that Mr. Kupperman was absolutely immune from testifying and directed him not to appear in defiance of a subpoena. That prompted the former official to file a lawsuit against Mr. Trump and congressional Democrats asking a federal judge whether he could testify, raising the prospect of a drawn-out legal battle over weighty questions about the separation of powers that could effectively stall the impeachment inquiry for months.

“We are not willing to let the White House engage us in a lengthy game of rope-a-dope in the courts, so we press ahead,” Mr. Schiff told reporters outside his secure hearing rooms.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/us/politics/trump-impeachment-subpoena-house.html

[ProudMNDemocrat]

1. The MORE Articles of Imperachment there are, the more compelling the case gets.....

Congressional Republicans who support this move by Trump and the Administration to continue to Obstruct Congress and of Justice, will pay a very heavy price at the polls no matter what bullshit they tell their constituents.

Democrats running for Office will use this against ALL Republicans no matter what.

[cstanleytech]

2. "Democrats running for Office will use this against ALL Republicans no matter what." Yup and they

should press every Republican candidate hard over being members of a corrupt unamerican party willing to support corruption at the highest level.

[calimary]

30. Yes they should!

I’m guessing once the hearings go live the public will finally wake up - or a critical mass of the public will have a “come to Jesus” moment and realize that this treasonous, ignorant, deceitful, self-absorbed, and totally unfit SOB needs to be shown the door. Gotten rid of. Summarily rejected and EJECTED. Period. Full stop.

He already starts low in the favorability department. It will drop. Enough to shake a few more republi-CONS loose from their comfy state of denial.

Sometimes truth won’t be denied.

[soldierant]

25. I think there's a magic maximum number of articles which will be the most compelling,

sort of like the break-even-point graphs in economics. I think we should use some - I don't know what the magic number is, and it may remain to be seen, but I'll bet Nancy will know it when she sees it, and Adam will too - above which we get into the territory of "Oh, for God's sake, they were so desperate they had to pull out THAT?" with the result that the base will start to regard everything as equally trivial.

The main reason I don't know what the maximum number is yet is that I don't know what all charges are contemplated yet. If my description sounds a little fuzzy, that may be why.

[LiberalLovinLug]

3. Oh for fucks sake

Do they really think that using the excuse of "if they would have had nothing to hide they would have cooperated" will work on Republican voters? Even on non-Republican voters? Or "because they didn't show up, it means that Trump must be guilty!" There are countless reasons the R's will give, with loud sycophants like Conway screaming them out. More than one they can use:

"Its an obvious sham otherwise they would have gone to court over it, but they drop it as soon as their big witchhunt bluff is called"

"If they would have testified, they would have exonerated the President, that's why Democrats were willing to quickly drop it"

"They couldn't testify for national security reasons"

"The witnesses agreed with Trump that nothing would have come from their testimonies anyways, and the Democrats must have obviously also thought that"

"No witnesses.....no collusion!"


Bill Maher and others are right. Democrats have everything they need to remove this festering boil, but the only thing that could screw it up is the Democratic party itself. I was expressing my concerns yesterday on the constant refusal to even honor a subpoena, and was told by someone here to not worry, how the courts will eventually aid us when it works its way through, as it did in the Nixon era. Now we've just capitulated on that.

[old guy]

5. I believe you are correct.

[MsLeopard]

13. +1

Have to agree with you.

[Wuddles440]

14. Agree 100%!!!

Fatal mistake not being aggressive in enforcing subpoenas and compelling witnesses to testify. This approach looks weak! Additional charges of Obstruction for such shenanigans, while justified, will not have any impact with the general public. Piling up a bunch of counts may look good on paper, but without any testimonial/evidentiary materials they're not real compelling. They ultimately may be rebuffed by the hacks on the SCOTUS, but they should at least make an attempt at enforcement.

[Duppers]

31. Wuddles, you nailed it: "not being aggressive in enforcing.."

"Fatal mistake not being aggressive in enforcing subpoena."

Why are Dems like this? Butter knives to gun fights.

[DeminPennswoods]

17. AFAIK, Kupperman has not dropped his lawsuit

Dems don't need to fight a court battle, Kupperman is doing it for them. I believe there's been a request for expedited review as well.

[Hunt 4 Blue November]

20. Democrats in Congress

Again!

[Jose Garcia]

4. I don't think that this will move GOP Senators into the impeachment camp

[LiberalLovinLug]

6. Another question is....why not walk and chew gum at the same time?

You MAY have enough without those witnesses, who will now be every witness going forward now that you've announced your promise of capitulation publicly, but as a back up, why not keep going through the courts anyways?

I need more context to this story. Democrats cannot possibly be this short sighted.

[dem4decades]

7. Continue with the impeachment. And continue in the courts.

Bring them to their knees. Get as much information as possible, even if it takes time. If damniig information comes too late for the impeachment, fuck it, get it for history.

[stopdiggin]

10. i think this is the right idea

if in fact it works with the courts.

[NewJeffCT]

18. agreed - get a Writ of Mandamus

to compel testimony on a National Security basis

[Teach-only-love]

8. The witnesses we already have

are more than enough to prove our case. A witness who does not want to testify is more likely to lie in order to help Trump. We must keep this case against Trump as simple as possible so it is easy to understand.

[stopdiggin]

9. this might be the best procedural decision

for the current time and place. But I think defiance of congressional subpoena needs to have a definitive answer from the courts. (even if they'd prefer not to have to give one.)

[George II]

11. It was reported on CNN about a half hour ago that there will be a vote on the House floor...

...on Thursday regarding the Impeachment Inquiry. Very few details on what that might entail.

[Pepsidog]

12. Good. They have plenty of credible evidence in the can already.

[patphil]

15. Failure to honor a subpoena may be a good strategy for the Republicans now

because they know there isn't enough time for the Democrats to fight a long court battle.
The Democrats have plenty of evidence to support impeachment right now, and will probably have a vote on the floor of the House in mid-December, right before the Christmas recess.
The trial would then start after the New Year.
If they go through the courts to force witnesses to come in and testify, it could delay the process 6 months or more...right up into the 2020 election.

We know the Republicans will never vote to remove Trump from office.
The whole impeachment process as it is unfolding now is being played out for the voters.
It's going to come down to showing the man up for what he is and letting the voters decide.
I don't see any other way at this time.
Time has become the limiting factor.

I think the Republicans are in much worse shape with this strategy than the Democrats. Remember, Trump's base is only 40% at best. He can't win if he doesn't increase that base, and he hasn't done anything to do that. I believe the American Public in general will see the blatant partisan vote in Congress as a coverup by the Republicans.
Trump will get renominated, but will be sufficiently damaged to render him un-electable.
Hopefully, enough Trump enablers in the Senate will also go down to give the Democrats full control of the government.
This is turning out to be one of the most critical times in the history of our nation.
The 2020 election could very well decide if the republic will continue, or not.
The USA could end up looking like Russia...sham elections and one party rule.
We need to make sure that doesn't happen.

Patrick Phillips

[Raster]

24. Nice analysis. I agree.

[Duppers]

32. Good, valid points. nt

And time is an important factor.

[SayItLoud]

16. Anyone know if Congress can impose immediate fines

on those who defy a Congressional subpoena?

[ProudMNDemocrat]

21. THROW the Fuckers in jail if they refuse to comply to Congressional subpoenas.

NO MORE Mr. Nice guy tactics. Fine them $25,000 a day for non-compliance. Let that add up.

[former9thward]

28. No, they can't.

DOJ enforces subpoenas. Courts impose sentences.

[CaptainTruth]

19. Good. Trump wants to delay impeachment by forcing everything to go to court.

I think it's a good strategy to respond by saying "ok, we'll skip the courts & proceed to impeachment."

It takes one of Trump's delaying tactics away from him.

[Nasruddin]

22. I agree

They have one shot to get impeachment done - they don't have time to deal with every problem or prosecute every
petty crook. That may have been Mueller's fatal flaw, slow slow work that used up the clock.

They don't need everything. The president and some of his minions already confessed. They just have
to show enough evidence that something bad in the real world happened, and the president's confession is real rather
than play acting or some kind of delusional behavior.

Anyway, if justice is done, prosecution of those bums can happen later. If justice doesn't, it won't matter
because they'll all be in charge.

[chowder66]

23. Wouldn't this also save taxpayers money? nt

[former9thward]

29. How?

Everyone in the courts gets paid no matter what they are doing. The lawyers work for the government and are paid no matter what they are doing.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

26. Eventually Republicans will welcome back the rule of law.

But not this batch.


https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/fears-of-economic-instability-after-central-bank-intervention-spikes-what-is-the-fed-not-telling-us/
.

[donkeypoofed]

27. I hope they give monetary fines to subpoena defiers

I'd start with 10k a day. Isn't this a remedy they could use?