You should really have that cynicism looked at by someone.
You’ve never heard of Bush v. Gore? The court system can act a lot quicker than 8 months in times of exigency.
No, it’s the pubs’ fault. But, IMHO, the dems aren’t dealing with it the right way.
Yes, I did.
I also expected House dems to pursue this to the full extent of their power, including subpoenas against Bolton, et al., whose testimony I thought might sway some not insignificant portion of mainstream pubs who haven’t otherwise been persuaded, and maybe even pick off some of Trump’s base, thus putting political pressure on enough pub senators to abandon ship. Instead, the dems pussied out, leading me to conclude they are either incompetent or, more likely, don’t really care about removing Trump as much as they just want to damage him politically for 2020. That may have been the shrewd move, but, to me, they’ve lost some of their moral authority along the way.
Without actually attempting to build the best case they could with the best first-hand witnesses they could, they never had a chance at persuading the real audience that matters. Maybe they wouldn’t have had a chance with Bolton, et al., either, but I’m reminded that the Nixon impeachment and removal didn’t stand a chance either, until it did.
No, it’s the pubs’ fault. But, IMHO, the dems aren’t dealing with it the right way.
So far as I’m aware, there aren’t any, subject to the two caveats below. The dems made a strategic decision to forgo the courts to compel subpoenas.
1. Kupperman sued and Dems withdrew the subpoena. I believe case may still technically be active, but without the dems pushing it it will likely be dismissed as moot.
2. The McGahn subpoena was issued before the impeachment inquiry. I haven’t read the briefing, but, considering this fact, I doubt the dems’ lawyers have been strenuously pushing the exigency argument.
Do you mean the same courts that ordered McGahn to respond to the subpoena or...?
You don’t get to just say “the courts are conservative so we would have lost anyway” and be done with it. For one thing, the courts aren’t conservative. SCOTUS, yes, though only 5-4, but lower courts no (thanks Obama). In any event, we are talking about issues that are not clearly delineated between “conservative” and “liberal.” There aren’t any justices on the SCOTUS who are going to hold Trump always wins. It’s ridiculous to think otherwise.
The Kupperman case is dead, and everyone knows it. Where’s the urgency when the dems withdraw the subpoena?
The impeachment inquiry started on September 24, coming up on 3 months ago. Election Day in year 2000 was on November 7. Bush v. Gore was decided on December 13, just over a month later.
If dems had pressed the issue, we might be on the verge of a final ruling, if we didn’t have it already. But they decided to abandon those efforts and, instead, add obstruction as an article. In my opinion, that was a miscalculation. They would have won in the SCOTUS and Bolton could be on the verge of testifying.
Three months from the time Nixon filed suit to the decision. Late April to July 24.
Kupperman filed suit on October 26. Three months is late January.
Also, US v Nixon was decided when lawyers and law clerks used books, typewriters, and lacked teams of associates chomping at the bit to participate in something like this. There is no doubt this would’ve taken less time than a similar issue in 1974.
Look, I get that the dems didn’t want the impeachment drama to take coverage away from their primary. That’s a fine political calculation, but compromising principles has consequences. You’re going to have a hard time convincing the country with testimony from civil servants the vast majority of the populous has never heard of.
it's not the country's job to listen. it's the job of the 100 senators this country elected to listen and decide.