Schiff: "If McConnell succeeds in dismissing this case without witnesses, it'll be the 1st..."

[Dennis Donovan]

Link to tweet

Kyle Griffin ✔ @kylegriffin1

Schiff: "If McConnell succeeds in dismissing this case without witnesses it will be the first impeachment case, not just involving a president, but involving anyone in the nation's history in which a trial went forward without witnesses." Via ABC

Embedded video

1:00 PM - Jan 13, 2020

Wow. Letting that sink in...

[BSdetect]

1. So we need to get past the blocks.

[jberryhill]

2. The "it will be the first time that..." form of argument is not the strongest type of argument

Obviously, since there is a first time for everything, the observation that "this would be the first time" is not actually an argument for or against something happening, so much as it is simply a factual statement. And, sometimes, it is simply an observation on a very low sample space.

There's a coin on my desk which has never come up heads. Granted, I've only flipped it twice, but them's the facts.

A more interesting question would be whether there had been, in prior impeachments, motions to dismiss the case for various argued reasons (as there are in any trial).

Referring to, for example, the Clinton impeachment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton#Senate_trial

On January 25, Senator Robert Byrd moved for dismissals of both articles of impeachment for lack of merit. On the following day, Representative Bryant moved to call witnesses to the trial, a question the Senate had scrupulously avoided to that point. In both cases, the Senate voted to deliberate on the question in private session, rather than public, televised procedure. On January 27, the Senate voted on both motions in public session; the motion to dismiss failed on a nearly party line vote of 56–44, while the motion to depose witnesses passed by the same margin.

Okay, in other words, in the Clinton impeachment, both questions of:

(a) can the case be dismissed outright, and
(b) can the case proceed without witnesses

were on the table.

The Senate voted down the motion to dismiss and approved the motion to depose witnesses.

But if either of those results had gone the other way, then we'd be looking at the second time here.

Pretty obviously, if it were not possible for the Democratic motion to dismiss to succeed, then there would have been no point in bringing, debating, and voting on the motion in the first place.

So, was it "okay" or "not okay" for Sen. Byrd to move for dismissal of the case against Clinton?

[grumpyduck]

3. I hope Amy kicks Moscow Mitch's ass in the election.

[cstanleytech]

4. Next Democrat in the White House needs to have the DOJ look

into this entire thing and maybe even approach it like a RICO investigation.

[jmowreader]

5. True...

...but if we take back the Senate in November, our first order of business needs to be expelling Mitch McConnell.

[cstanleytech]

6. Not to mention an ethics investigation as well as an FBI one.

[tritsofme]

7. Expell Mitch McConnell? Must be a fun fantasy world!

It would be quite a feat for Democrats to win 67 votes in the next Senate, while McConnell somehow won reelection.

[calimary]

11. That's not an unreasonable suspicion.

He’s been cock o’ the walk for years now. He’s used to the leadership position, especially as MAJORITY leader. He’s owned the joint and called all the shots and dominated the landscape for years.

Will his by-now over-flattered, over-inflated, over-kowtowed-and-bowed-to ego be able to handle having to step down? Seeing that fancy bronze “Senate Majority Leader” plaque at the door of his large important office that he’d have to give up because somebody else is entitled to it.

I’ve heard several pols say that it’s no fun being in the minority because you have no power. And ol’ Moscow is VERY accustomed to throwing his weight around. He LOVES calling himself the “Grim Reaper” and boasts about Democratic legislation from the House dying on his desk.

I bet he’d quit if that was all taken away from him. After you’re Number One, you don’t want to be merely one-of-100.

[coti]

9. Yes. That's why it wouldn't be a trial at all. nt

[wnylib]

10. Moscow Mitch keeps saying - dishonestly - that

there were no witnesses in the Clinton trial and therefore he is following precedent.

But there WERE witnesses in Clinton's trial. They were deposed in hearings and their depositions were available for the trial. They did not testify in person, but their depositions provided testimony.

Trump has not allowed depositions or documentary evidence for hearings or the trial.

Moscow Mitch needs to be repeatedly called out on this lie, in person and in every repetition of his lie in the media.