CNN legal analyst: Impeachment 'looking like a fast train to acquittal in the Senate'

[mystery-ak]

CNN legal analyst: Impeachment 'looking like a fast train to acquittal in the Senate'
By Joe Concha - 12/10/19 11:15 AM EST

CNN legal analyst Ross Garber said Tuesday that the impeachment process against President Trump is "looking like a fast train to acquittal" in the Senate.

"This is, I think, not a real effort to remove the president. The Democrats are moving these articles through. They know it has little or no shot of going anywhere in the Senate," Garber told "CNN Newsroom."

"I’ve been saying, 'take a look at the actual issues here,' " he continued. "'Do a real investigation.' And this notion by [House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam] Schiff [D-Calif.] that he didn’t have time to go to court, I think, is just nonsense."

"We do have this rushed impeachment process, which is looking like a fast train to acquittal in the Senate," Garber later concluded.

more
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/473860-cnn-legal-analyst-impeachment-looking-like-a-fast-train-to-acquittal-in-the

[mystery-ak]

I believe this is exactly what the RATS want...Trump's acquittal in the Senate so they can blame the Repubs for letting him off....

[skeeter]

I believe this is exactly what the RATS want...Trump's acquittal in the Senate so they can blame the Repubs for letting him off....

The GOP senate should let the rats twist in the wind for a few months. Give the 'charges' a good airing, and introduce actual fact base charges of their own.

[Right_in_Virginia]

The GOP senate should let the rats twist in the wind for a few months. Give the 'charges' a good airing .... .

They can do this and then pass Summary Judgment to Dismiss.

[mystery-ak]

The GOP senate should let the rats twist in the wind for a few months. Give the 'charges' a good airing, and introduce actual fact base charges of their own.

Good idea and that keeps the Senate Pres candidates from campaigning...they have to be in attendance..lol

[Cyber Liberty]

I believe this is exactly what the RATS want...Trump's acquittal in the Senate so they can blame the Repubs for letting him off....

That's what I expect, and it suits GOPe well, too.  Lindsey Graham ran this up the flagpole on Bartiromo's Sunday morning show, to see if anybody salutes.  I hope he got the message....

[bilo]

They can do this and then pass Summary Judgment to Dismiss.

I believe a summary judgement would be requested before the defense presents their case.

I really want this to get dirty for the Rats. I doubt I'm alone in wanting to see all those who orchestrated this soviet style sham under oath being questioned, in addition to the Bidens. Enough is enough.

[libertybele]

The GOP senate should let the rats twist in the wind for a few months. Give the 'charges' a good airing, and introduce actual fact base charges of their own.

The DEMS already have what they wanted; impeachment and that is all the DEM voting base will hear or care about.

IMHO I doubt that the GOPe will pursue any kind of trial that would expose any further corruption and will quickly take up a vote.  Trump interrupted the 'country club' on both sides and those knee deep in corruption want this to go away.

[Cyber Liberty]

The DEMS already have what they wanted; impeachment and that is all the DEM voting base will hear or care about.

IMHO I doubt that the GOPe will pursue any kind of trial that would expose any further corruption and will quickly take up a vote.  Trump interrupted the 'country club' on both sides and those knee deep in corruption want this to go away.

The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Graham, is saying the moment he gets 51 votes to acquit, the Senate will do so.  He doesn't want Trump's side to introduce any evidence, for whatever reason probably not being disclosed.  I just hope the rest of the GOP Senators continue to call themselves "undecided jurors." 

[bilo]

The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Graham, is saying the moment he gets 51 votes to acquit, the Senate will do so.  He doesn't want Trump's side to introduce any evidence, for whatever reason probably not being disclosed.  I just hope the rest of the GOP Senators continue to call themselves "undecided jurors."

The Pubs never learn.

They lost the House to the Rats for several reasons, but the chief reason being they didn't back Trump on the big issues he ran on. They failed on immigration and ending/replacing obamacare. The Pub base wants "blood". If the Pubs just declare victory and end impeachment it will not only disappoint the base, but it will help energize the Rats.

[Cyber Liberty]

The Pubs never learn.

They lost the House to the Rats for several reasons, but the chief reason being they didn't back Trump on the big issues he ran on. They failed on immigration and ending/replacing obamacare. The Pub base wants "blood". If the Pubs just declare victory and end impeachment it will not only disappoint the base, but it will help energize the Rats.

Correct.  It would be a fatal mistake.

[verga]

I believe a summary judgement would be requested before the defense presents their case.

I really want this to get dirty for the Rats. I doubt I'm alone in wanting to see all those who orchestrated this soviet style sham under oath being questioned, in addition to the Bidens. Enough is enough.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I believe a summary judgement would be requested before the defense presents their case.

I really want this to get dirty for the Rats. I doubt I'm alone in wanting to see all those who orchestrated this soviet style sham under oath being questioned, in addition to the Bidens. Enough is enough.

A trial never goes the way either the plaintiff or the defendant expects.  For instance, Chief Justice John Roberts could rule on the scope of executive privilege with respect to high-ranking administration officials as well as any diplomats, national security staff or budget office staff barred up until now by the White House from providing evidence.

It is just as likely that more Trump administration members would be put under oath than democrats.  It would also be up to Roberts to determine if the Senate can call sitting members of the House of Representatives and rule on a Biden subpoena and "whistleblower" protections.  I'm not enthusiastic about putting the fate of POTUS in the hands of John Roberts.

As I said, nothing is certain once a trial is gaveled into session.  This may explain why Senator Cruz last night on Hannity's show said when this hits the Senate, it will be dismissed (based on no fact witnesses and the nature of the charges).

Let's not muddy the waters.  Let Durham deal with the coup plotters.  With a second Trump term secured, the DOJ can expand the coup plotters to include the "whistleblower" and Schiff.

@bilo

[bilo]

A trial never goes the way either the plaintiff or the defendant expects.  For instance, Chief Justice John Roberts could rule on the scope of executive privilege with respect to high-ranking administration officials as well as any diplomats, national security staff or budget office staff barred up until now by the White House from providing evidence.

It is just as likely that more Trump administration members would be put under oath than democrats.  It would also be up to Roberts to determine if the Senate can call sitting members of the House of Representatives and rule on a Biden subpoena and "whistleblower" protections.  I'm not enthusiastic about putting the fate of POTUS in the hands of John Roberts.

As I said, nothing is certain once a trial is gaveled into session.  This may explain why Senator Cruz last night on Hannity's show said when this hits the Senate, it will be dismissed (based on no fact witnesses and the nature of the charges).

Let's not muddy the waters.  Let Durham deal with the coup plotters.  With a second Trump term secured, the DOJ can expand the coup plotters to include the "whistleblower" and Schiff.

@bilo

You raise a good point. When push comes to shove Roberts always fails us.

[Jazzhead]

A trial never goes the way either the plaintiff or the defendant expects.  For instance, Chief Justice John Roberts could rule on the scope of executive privilege with respect to high-ranking administration officials as well as any diplomats, national security staff or budget office staff barred up until now by the White House from providing evidence.

It is just as likely that more Trump administration members would be put under oath than democrats.  It would also be up to Roberts to determine if the Senate can call sitting members of the House of Representatives and rule on a Biden subpoena and "whistleblower" protections.  I'm not enthusiastic about putting the fate of POTUS in the hands of John Roberts.

As I said, nothing is certain once a trial is gaveled into session.  This may explain why Senator Cruz last night on Hannity's show said when this hits the Senate, it will be dismissed (based on no fact witnesses and the nature of the charges).

Let's not muddy the waters.  Let Durham deal with the coup plotters.  With a second Trump term secured, the DOJ can expand the coup plotters to include the "whistleblower" and Schiff.

@bilo

Agreed.   Roberts is all about institutional legitimacy.   That's ordinarily a good thing - but here it could include permitting the Senate minority to call folks like Bolton to testify who have direct knowledge of Trump's asserted motivations for delaying the Ukrainian military aid.

The bases of both parties love the reality show and want it renewed for another season.   The rest of us want to get back to the peoples' business.   So should Trump - he's got a robust economy to boast about and plenty of Dem bogeymen to paint as promoting socialism, open borders and identity politics.   If the House votes to impeach on a straight party line,  I have no issue with the Senate voting to dismiss the farce on the same basis.   

[Fishrrman]

mystery wrote:
"I believe this is exactly what the RATS want...Trump's acquittal in the Senate so they can blame the Repubs for letting him off...."

Hmmm...
Consider...
If the Republicans in the Senate vote quickly to end the trial and acquit Trump, won't they be going "all in" on him? That is to say, they WON'T be able to claim "we are independent, we don't support him".

In other words, by voting to acquit, they "join the Trump team" whether they like it or not. And in the future, it will do them worse to try to deny that, than to simply acknowledge it, and "run with the team".