What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Timeline For Impeachment Vote - Then Senate Trial (1 Viewer)

Joe Bryant

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
I'm sure this has been covered in the other big threads. Apologies for a new thread but this seems important from a strategy angle.

What is the expected time line for impeachment process in the House and then if forward, the Senate?

Specifically, I'm interested in how it relates to the 2020 election in November. Thanks.

 
What made me think of it was President Trump's tweet this morning asking to speed the process and get to the Senate.

My thought would be the Democrats would want opposite of what he wants. That fair?

 
I think if you take the Clinton trial as a baseline, that lasted a month. I'd guess this case is twice as complex and wouldn't be shocked to see it drag on closer to 2 months.  I think a lot depends on what Trump's defense team tries to bring up in the trial. 

I'm all for this thing getting started and over with ASAP as soon as both sides say they have all the information they need.

 
David Axelrod@davidaxelrod · 35m

For those who want to skip ahead: The House will impeach @POTUS by the end of the year because what he did warrants it.

The Senate will hold a trial in January but not convict, regardless of evidence, because he has absolute control of his party.

And then we will move on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
To piggyback on the OP, how does trial formatting get decided on?  It’s neither civil nor criminal in actuality, correct, but it is much more akin to civil matters in nature?  I assume the issues of testimony from executive branch players will have to be dealt with first?  On that topic, supposing testimony is forced, would it work like the Intelligence Committee hearings where there’s first a private depo and then public appearance at trial?

 
Sinn Fein said:
David Axelrod@davidaxelrod · 35m

For those who want to skip ahead: The House will impeach @POTUS by the end of the year because what he did warrants it.

The Senate will hold a trial in January but not convict, regardless of evidence, because he has absolute control of his party.

And then we will move on.
Click to expand...
Mostly agree.  I don't think Trump has absolute control of the party though.  There are a few who will look out for themselves first. 

 
Hours after Ms. Pelosi’s statement, the Judiciary Committee announced a hearing on Monday for Intelligence Committee lawyers to present their findings. People familiar with the matter believe the Judiciary panel is on track to begin publicly debating and voting on articles by the end of next week.

 
Sinn Fein said:
David Axelrod@davidaxelrod · 35m

For those who want to skip ahead: The House will impeach @POTUS by the end of the year because what he did warrants it.

The Senate will hold a trial in January but not convict, regardless of evidence, because he has absolute control of his party.

And then we will move on.
Click to expand...
This is what will happen.  However, the witnesses who Trump has been hiding if compelled will likely have damning testimony.  Not enough to swing the Senate vote but enough to make the true independents of the country realize for 100% certainty that Trump is not worthy of being POTUS.

 
I am still not convinced there will the kind of trial that people are expecting in the Senate.

In the Clinton trial - there was no public testimony from witnesses - only a few video-taped depositions behind closed doors, excerpts of which were shown later.

I would be surprised if McConnell allowed this to turn into a 3-Ring Circus - which is what would happen with the calling of all witnesses both sides would want.

And - I am not sure the Dems would call witnesses when they don't know what the witnesses will say.  Better to simply argue that they ignored lawful subpoenas to testify before the House, and thus must have something to hide.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I am still not convinced there will the kind of trial that people are expecting in the Senate.

In the Clinton trial - there was no public testimony from witnesses - only a few video-taped depositions behind closed doors, excerpts of which were shown later.

I would be surprised if McConnell allowed this to turn into a 3-Ring Circus - which is what would happen with the calling of all witnesses both sides would want.

And - I am not sure the Dems would call witnesses when they don't know what the witnesses will say.  Better to simply argue that they ignored lawful subpoenas to testify before the House, and thus must have something to hide.
Click to expand...
What are your thoughts on the “Read This” Talking Points Memo blog post that was discussed a few weeks ago? My best guess is we will indeed see a dramatic trial due to the points made within.

 
Joe Bryant said:
What made me think of it was President Trump's tweet this morning asking to speed the process and get to the Senate.

My thought would be the Democrats would want opposite of what he wants. That fair?
Click to expand...
The democratic senators running for president need this to get over quickly in order to campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire and the other early states.   Of course since the senators remaining that seem viable are more to the left (Warren and Sanders) I wouldn't be surprised to see the DNC is dragging this out to help the establishment candidates narrative to be making rounds shortly.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I think is a huge risk to compel the testimony of any witness at trial - if you don't KNOW what they will testify to.
Click to expand...
I’m thinking of Bolton more than anyone else.  Perhaps the Democrats will know what he’ll say.

I also like to compare the upside risk to the downside risk.  It seems they have more to gain than lose since acquittal seems so incredibly likely.  

 
Juxtatarot said:
I’m thinking of Bolton more than anyone else.  Perhaps the Democrats will know what he’ll say.

I also like to compare the upside risk to the downside risk.  It seems they have more to gain than lose since acquittal seems so incredibly likely.  
Click to expand...
An embarrassing loss, which would happen if one of the witnesses completely debunked the case - with receipts - is far worse than simply not winning, and not getting damaging testimony from Bolton (or Mulvaney or Pompeo).

And, if you don't KNOW what the witness will say, don't ask the question. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
What made me think of it was President Trump's tweet this morning asking to speed the process and get to the Senate.

My thought would be the Democrats would want opposite of what he wants. That fair?
Click to expand...
Actually it was the GOP witness yesterday Turley who was putting forth the proposition that the Dems should slow their role and use the courts. Which is hilarious in light of this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
I am still not convinced there will the kind of trial that people are expecting in the Senate.

In the Clinton trial - there was no public testimony from witnesses - only a few video-taped depositions behind closed doors, excerpts of which were shown later.

I would be surprised if McConnell allowed this to turn into a 3-Ring Circus - which is what would happen with the calling of all witnesses both sides would want.

And - I am not sure the Dems would call witnesses when they don't know what the witnesses will say.  Better to simply argue that they ignored lawful subpoenas to testify before the House, and thus must have something to hide.
Click to expand...
On your first point- it’s really all up in the air right now. President Trump’s tweet this morning indicates he wants the circus. Specifically he wants the Bidens and Schiff and the whistleblower to testify. I don’t see how that happens unless some of the guys the Democrats want are forced to testify as well. But again we have no idea how this plays out. Sure the final outcome is pre-ordained but whatever comes in between is unsure. McConnell obviously doesn’t want Trump put at risk but at the same time he can’t make it look to the public like a whitewash because that could seriously hurt the Republicans in November. 

As to your second point: yes I’ve feared this all along. I hope they remember that an impeachment trial is not like a regular trial; they’ve got to take some chances. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
An embarrassing loss, which would happen if one of the witnesses completely debunked the case - with receipts - is far worse than simply not winning, and not getting damaging testimony from Bolton (or Mulvaney or Pompeo).

And, if you don't KNOW what the witness will say, don't ask the question. 
Click to expand...
I disagree with this. If a witness can completely debunk the case with solid evidence, I very much want him to testify.

The goal shouldn’t be to make a flimsy case against the President seem stronger than it is. The goal should be to determine the truth.

 
Sinn Fein said:
An embarrassing loss, which would happen if one of the witnesses completely debunked the case - with receipts - is far worse than simply not winning, and not getting damaging testimony from Bolton (or Mulvaney or Pompeo).

And, if you don't KNOW what the witness will say, don't ask the question. 
Click to expand...
Wait, you think there's a witness in the administration that could completely debunk the case with receipts but the White House told him not to testify?

 
Sinn Fein said:
David Axelrod@davidaxelrod · 35m

For those who want to skip ahead: The House will impeach @POTUS by the end of the year because what he did warrants it.

The Senate will hold a trial in January but not convict, regardless of evidence, because he has absolute control of his party.

And then we will move on.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Do the Democrats have much control on this time line?

Specifically, would it be to their advantage to impeach more towards the Spring and have it have the senate trial closer to the election?

I guess maybe that begs the question, if it's impeachment and then no removal in the Senate (which everyone seems to think will be the case) what will be the net effect on the election?

Will a no removal in the Senate be seen as a positive for Trump? If so, I can see how the Dems would want to go ahead and get that over with. 

If it'll be seen as a negative, seems like it would be better to have that closer to the election. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
I am still not convinced there will the kind of trial that people are expecting in the Senate.

In the Clinton trial - there was no public testimony from witnesses - only a few video-taped depositions behind closed doors, excerpts of which were shown later.

I would be surprised if McConnell allowed this to turn into a 3-Ring Circus - which is what would happen with the calling of all witnesses both sides would want.

And - I am not sure the Dems would call witnesses when they don't know what the witnesses will say.  Better to simply argue that they ignored lawful subpoenas to testify before the House, and thus must have something to hide.
Click to expand...
I disagree. What could they possibly have to say that could exonerate the President? I just don't know if Pompeo, Bolton, Giuliani to name a few are going to purger themselves for the President. Pompeo already has been caught with statements that don't align with the previous witnesses. Giuliani is in big trouble with the SDNY and isn't likely to add purgery to  other charges that are inevitable. Bolton has plenty to say and never really did care for Trump. Chief Justice Roberts is in charge and they won't be able to defy subpoenas.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
Hours after Ms. Pelosi’s statement, the Judiciary Committee announced a hearing on Monday for Intelligence Committee lawyers to present their findings. People familiar with the matter believe the Judiciary panel is on track to begin publicly debating and voting on articles by the end of next week.
Click to expand...
Wow that’s fast.  So say they vote on the articles at the end of the week.  Then what?  Is it up to McConnell to decide when to hold a trial?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
(Media Optics Analysis) Georgia Senate Debate - Raphael Warnock Vs Herschel Walker (10/16/22 17:07 PST)
Replies
4
Views
692
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
OP/ED: Biden Will Be Impeached After The Mid Terms & WWYD (5/17/22 19:42 PST)
2 3
Replies
128
Views
7K
quick-hands
quick-hands
Joe Bryant
Help Me Understand HR-8 Gun Control Bill
2
Replies
94
Views
3K
sho nuff
sho nuff

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top