- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
- Click here to share on LinkedIn (Opens in a new window)
- Click to email a friend (Opens in a new window)
Washington (CNN) - The countdown began: there are two days left before the political trial against President Donald Trump begins.
In the Impeachment Watch podcast we spent a lot of time wondering about the president's state of mind as he prepares to, on Wednesday, become the third president in the history of the United States to be subjected to a political trial that could end his dismissal.
We also discuss how there is no drama left in this political trial since the final result feels like an inevitable conclusion.
The Senate trial will be baroque, maybe not a blockbuster, if they do it under the rules
What will the political trial be like? We do not know. But I spent some time last week looking at the 26 rules in force with which the senators will begin. We speak with multiple experts in parliamentary procedures of the Senate. What Trump may not realize is that it is a baroque affair.
There is an announcement every morning to tidy up the procedures.
It begins like this: "Listen, listen, listen under penalty of imprisonment, everyone must remain silent."
Senators ask questions by passing notes to court president John Roberts.
Senators can vote to change any rule they want, but all this is based on the trial of Andrew Johnson. It is very outdated.
What Mitch McConnell doesn't have is 51 votes
CNN's Phil Mattingly wrote an article about the latest negotiations (or lack thereof) between Republicans and Democrats in a Senate trial.
Key point: with 51 votes, McConnell can do almost everything he wants in the impending Senate political trial. But at this stage, McConnell is not committed to at least 51 of the 53 senators in his party to do something. That means that what happens next, and the extent of Schumer's real leverage at this time, are still unknown.
Did the House Democrats make a big mistake?
Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer wants new witnesses so Democrats can re-litigate the merits of this case. Many Republicans have heard enough.
Senator Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, expressed this line of thought very well: “This is a political exercise. Let's end this. ”
Schumer has a list of witnesses that he would like to present in the process of political trial in the Senate. The funny thing is that all are the witnesses that the House Democrats decided not to quote earlier this year.
Why didn't the House Democrats wait for these witnesses?
The representative of California, Adam Schiff, and the Democrats in the House Intelligence Commission decided to move forward with the political trial instead of waiting for the courts to force people like the head of the White House cabinet Mick Mulvaney or the Former National Security Advisor John Bolton to disregard Trump's claim of privilege. Judicial review of these things may take months or more.
Bolton, in particular, said he had pertinent information and practically begged to testify.
When asked if he thought the House should have gone to court to try to force the four witnesses he requested to testify, Schumer said he would not "question" the House, but added that "there is no good argument" for not having these people testifying in a possible Senate trial "if you are interested in the facts."
Opinions have not changed
On the other hand, given that nothing in the testimony of political trial seems to have changed the opinion of a single respondent, despite the credible testimony of career civil servants, there is some logic in the strategic decision of the Democrats to move forward with their plans.
The courts take a long time
In fact, the case about whether the ex-lawyer of the White House Don McGahn should testify about the findings of former special prosecutor Robert Mueller, is prior to the Ukrainian scandal. The next court date is January 3, at which time Trump has already been charged.
Is it a defective case?
Republicans, such as White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, said Schumer's witness request was evidence that the House did not prove his case.
“The Democrats of the House of Representatives violated their own rules and any historical precedent of equity by conducting their mock illegitimate political trial. Senator Schumer's letter is just one more proof that the only evidence that the House presented, actually proves that President Trump did nothing wrong, ”he said.
Of course, the Chamber could only present evidence in the form of witness testimony that respected their subpoenas.
Actually, there is a lot of evidence against the president, but every time Republicans can attack the process, they can try to reduce public support for impeachment.
Giuliani to The New Yorker: 'I needed Yovanovitch out of the way'
Confirming the testimony of diplomats at political trial hearings, Rudy Giuliani, in comments to The New Yorker magazine, linked the expulsion of the US ambassador. UU. in Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, in his effort to dig up compromising information from the Biden.
"I thought I needed Yovanovitch out of the way," he said. "She was going to make research difficult for everyone."
Removing Yovanovitch from his position is not among the charges of political trial, but Giuliani's admission certainly plays in the broadest narrative about his search for research and Trump's to harm his political rivals.
This is a busy year for data verifiers.
President Donald Trump more than doubled the number of false or misleading claims he made this year to more than 15,000, according to Fact Checker of The Washington Post.
Political judgment