Jonathan Turley: Dems Have to Scrap Half of Impeachment to Have a Prayer at Getting Witnesses

[PeteS in CA]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/jonathan-turley-dems-have-to-scrap-half-of-impeachment-to-have-a-prayer-at-getting-witnesses/

Jonathan Turley: Dems Have to Scrap Half of Impeachment to Have a Prayer at Getting Witnesses

The House impeachment managers "lost this case before it began — not because of the Republican majority but because of the House managers' own historic blunder in rushing the impeachment forward on an incomplete record," he wrote in The Washington Post. "They now must make a choice between the disastrous in simply staying the course to certain acquittal or the unpalatable in admitting the blunder and offering a compromise."
...
"The decision sits now with the House managers. They can either just grab face time on national television or they can move to deal with their blunder and try to resuscitate this case. They might be able to do so but they will have to offer more than a witness swap," the constitutional lawyer wrote.

Turley suggested a far grander compromise: "To put it simply, it may be time to dismiss Article II." He insisted the "obstruction of Congress" charge was "dead on arrival," and suggested a vote to dismiss the article would allow the Senate to go on record in opposition to the House's abuse of power.

1. I think the Dems are too Trump-wasted to admit article 2 is utterly ridiculous.

2. The Dems have pretty much no strength in such a negotiation. Trump's attorneys are practically chomping at the bit to bury both articles of impeachment with facts. The Rs' negotiating position is overwhelmingly strong, IMO. They have no need to compromise.

[EdinVA]

Not being a lawyer, I can only think that letting the defense finish, do the Q & A, the call for a vote and put it to bed.
I would not negotiate at all on adding/removing articles or witnesses.

[truth_seeker]

In contract Law, in Treaties, in business and personal negotiations and arrangements, "quid pro quo, is the basis.

"Something for Something."

To be so biased and naive, to think the President of the US should NOT utilize that concept, is beyond ridicuous.

Such a childish position, would exist in the mind of Greta, AOC, SJW yutes, democrat/socialists, social workers, TDS sufferers,  etc.

[aligncare]

In contract Law, in Treaties, in business and personal negotiations and arrangements, "quid pro quo, is the basis.

"Something for Something."

To be so biased and naive, to think the President of the US should NOT utilize that concept, is beyond ridicuous.

Such a childish position, would exist in the mind of Greta, AOC, SJW yutes, democrat/socialists, social workers, TDS sufferers,  etc.

The United States government doesn’t just hand out money because we’re nice guys and there’s this pile of extra money lying around. We are buying cooperation and strategic partnerships for any future needs we may have involving security or intelligence resources or prosecuting international crimes. Here, we’ll help you, but just remember who gave you the help you needed.

[Snarknado]

The obstruction article is a slam-dunk acquittal - I don't see how offering to withdraw it gives the dems any leverage toward any sort of compromise. Of course an offer to withdraw the abuse article would be a different story.

But any talk of a "compromise" is moot anyway in light of the dems' promises to keep investigating and impeaching until they get their way. Anything they "give up" in a compromise today would be back on the table tomorrow.

[DCPatriot]

In contract Law, in Treaties, in business and personal negotiations and arrangements, "quid pro quo, is the basis.

"Something for Something."

To be so biased and naive, to think the President of the US should NOT utilize that concept, is beyond ridicuous.

Such a childish position, would exist in the mind of Greta, AOC, SJW yutes, democrat/socialists, social workers, TDS sufferers,  etc.

 

[PeteS in CA]

...
But any talk of a "compromise" is moot anyway in light of the dems' promises to keep investigating and impeaching until they get their way. Anything they "give up" in a compromise today would be back on the table tomorrow.

Yeah, that "promise" pretty much obviates any possible compromise. The Dems will stop their fishing expedition only when and for as long as they are forced to (the "Corpse Synod" comes to mind).

On the other hand, Trump's case devastates both articles on the base of facts. So nothing compels the Rs to compromise.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

In contract Law, in Treaties, in business and personal negotiations and arrangements, "quid pro quo, is the basis.

"Something for Something."

To be so biased and naive, to think the President of the US should NOT utilize that concept, is beyond ridicuous.

Such a childish position, would exist in the mind of Greta, AOC, SJW yutes, democrat/socialists, social workers, TDS sufferers,  etc.

Technically, "this for that".   And right there points to the fatal flaw in the impeachment case.  According to the House, the theory is that Trump offered "this" (the aid), for "that" (information on the Bidens).    But as it turned out, the Ukraine got "this" without ever giving up "that".  So by definition, there was no quid pro quo.

The House would have had a far better case if Trump had never released the aid, or if the Ukraine had given up evidence on the Bidens.  But neither of those things happened.  Trump's failure to follow through with the "quid pro quo", even if he had contemplated doing so at some point in time, is fatal to their case.