Good twitter thread explaining the legal process

[NewJeffCT]

Link to tweet

?s=19

12 tweets in total - very clear and concise.

THREAD: I'm not a Lawyer, but I have a particular view when it comes to Impeachment.

When I worked for Warner Bros. Legal and Business Affairs, we had a simple guideline for pursuing litigation. First, we'd send the offending party a 30 day cease and desist letter... 1/12

[hlthe2b]

1. Yes, of course.. Congressional Chairs are doing what they must...

That said, it seems as though they will likewise have to provide proof that the admin literally defecated on the subpoenas--unless we get rational judges like Justice Mehta.

[NewJeffCT]

3. I'll refer to that set of tweets

each time I get impatient.

I think most lower court judges will rule against Team Trump - we'll just need to see if Roberts joins the Constitution/Rule of Law side or the Trump/Russia side. I hope somebody else would follow him in agreeing with the rule of law as well so it's at least 6-3 or 7-2.

[Chin music]

27. If they wait long enough, a SCJ will die.

See Scalia. Then it's game over. Tomorrow is promised to no one....except trump and that darn senate that is the go to excuse for every non impeacher. Im sure they'll resist the temptation to appoint another trump stoolie though.

[ehrnst]

2. Here's the rest of the entire thread, for those without twitter:

....

When I worked for Warner Bros. Legal and Business Affairs, we had a simple guideline for pursuing litigation. First, we'd send the offending party a 30 day cease and desist letter...

When that didn't work, we'd send them ANOTHER 30 day cease and desist letter...and if that didn't work, we'd send a THIRD 30 day cease and desist letter...

But on day 91 of that process, we'd initiate litigation.

Inevitably we'd be in court, and the Judge would ask us, "Okay, but have you given the offending party every chance to comply with your wishes?"

And we'd be able to say "Yes, we have your honor. Here is our first 30 day cease and desist, here's our second and here's our third. All documented, and transmitted, all ignored by the Offending Party."

Suddenly, we weren't the ones having to prove anything, it was the guys we were suing. The Judge would look at them, and say "So what about this counselor? Why have you ignored their lawful request??"

In terms of Impeachment, we are on the second 30 day cease and desist letter, metaphorically speaking.

The Democrats are bound for court and are now collecting documentation to show how much the Administration is acting unlawfully.

We are going after Tax Returns via Ways and Means.
We are going after Bank Records via Intelligence and Finance.
We are after Testimony via Judiciary and Oversight.
All of which we have a right to.
All of which have been subpoenaed.

So when you see the Chairmen of these various committees "not going fast enough" remember, they are collecting documentation with each of these extended deadlines.

When the Democrats face a judge, they'll be able to say "Look, your Honor, we gave the Administration EVERY CHANCE to comply with the law."

What you call slow and ineffective, is what a Lawyer would call crossing every "t" and dotting every "i" before going into court.

Because it's a dead cinch lock that the Judge will rule in our favor once those "t"s & "i"s are taken care of...because what I expect to happen...and what I think every Democrat expects to happen is that Trump will then defy whatever ruling the Judge hands down...

...and once that happens, once Trump defies a Federal Judge's ruling (which I expect to happen 100%), well the pressure to impeach won't be on the Democrats. It'll be on the Republicans.

So, if you're patient, this is going to play out the way you want. Trump can't help himself. END

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1130599849995325440.html

[NewJeffCT]

4. Thank you

As I said above, I think most lower court judges will rule against Team Trump as history, precedent and the Constitution are against Donny.

[ehrnst]

7. Do you know how many lower court judges have been installed by Trump?

And you know that they will shop around to find one that will rule for him.

[onenote]

25. Not as many as you seem to think

Not counting the territories (e.g., Puerto Rico, Guam, etc), there are 90 district courts. There currently are more than 50 of those courts that do not have a single Trump appointed judge. Overall, there are around 260 active district court judges appointed by Obama and around 60 appointed by Trump. When you add the active judges appointed by earlier presidents, there are around 230 Republican appointed judges and 320 district court judges appointed by Democrats.

[LanternWaste]

26. Tell us. How many has he appointed out of how many total?

[ehrnst]

35. There are currently 870 authorized Article III judgeships

Last edited Wed May 22, 2019, 08:51 AM - Edit history (1)

There are currently 870 authorized Article III judgeships: nine on the Supreme Court, 179 on the courts of appeals, 673 for the district courts and nine on the Court of International Trade. The total number of active federal judges is constantly in flux, for two reasons. First, judges retire or die, and a lapse of time occurs before new judges are appointed to fill those positions. Second, from time to time Congress will increase (or, less frequently, decrease) the number of federal judgeships in a particular judicial district, usually in response to shifting population numbers or a changing workload in that district.


DT has appointed (does not include those who are pending confirmation):

41 in Court of appeals (out of 179)
65 in US District court (out of 673)
2 United States Court of International Trade (out of nine)
2 United States Court of Federal Claims
2 United States Tax Court

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

This administration is known for judge-shopping, so it doesn't take a huge number of GWB appointees + DT appointees to find one that is friendly.

Why do you think that McConnell made blocking Obama's nominees a priority? It matters, that's why.

[bluecollar2]

9. Thank you....n/t

[mcar]

16. I'm not a lawyer, but I thought this was the process

Thanks.

[blueinredohio]

30. Thanks ehrnst from those of us who don't have Twitter.

I wish more people would realize not everyone has social media.

[OnDoutside]

31. I don't have twitter either. You don't need to join twitter to view tweets. Just open up your

browser and put the twitter link in the address bar.

[GoCubsGo]

33. You don't even need to do that.

Just click on the tweet. It will open it up in a new tab, at least in Firefox.

[GoCubsGo]

32. You don't need to be on Twitter to be able to read tweets.

Just click anywhere within the tweet that is posted, it will take you to the full thread. To see their full account, click on their name. I'm not on Twitter, and I have no problem reading tweets from accounts that are not private.

[watoos]

5. When the Democrats face a judge, they'll be able to say "Look, your Honor, we gave the

Administration every chance to obey the law"

That my friend will be after the election.

[ehrnst]

6. We didn't get the house until February 2019. That's the reality.

Did you actually think that impeachment will remove him sooner than November 2020? We knew from the start that impeachment would not remove him, because of the Senate.

That, my friend, is what the reality of the situation is.

We can clap our hands as hard as we can, but that fairy isn't going to come to life and eject him from office. The only sure way for Democrats to do that is..... the 2020 election.

[NewJeffCT]

8. Republicans impeached Clinton based on the Starr Report

and held no hearings on it before the vote in the House.

From the House vote in December of 1998 until Clinton was acquitted by the Senate in February of 1999, it was less than 2 months.

With Trump, there is far more evidence - aiding & abetting, collusion, conspiracy, suborning perjury, obstruction, emoluments, etc.

It's also a myth that the impeachment & acquittal resulted in a bump in Clinton's approval ratings - it actually permanently hurt his approval ratings and led to the media insisting that Gore distance himself from the morally tainted Clinton, and Gore complied by naming boring straight arrow scold Joe Lieberman as his VP nominee.

In the four months before the impeachment vote, Clinton's approvals were never below 63% and were typically 63-66%... 30 days after acquittal, he was down to 62% and by mid April 1999, he was at 59% and never went over 60% the rest of 1999. So, the reality is that he was hurt by a good 5-7% in the polling. If Trump gets tagged 8-10% from his current numbers, he'll be in the low to mid 30s approval ratings wise.

[ehrnst]

10. Different situation, different point in history, different POTUS.

I'll defer to the judgment of the most skilled Speaker of the House in modern times, because I know enough to know what I don't know.

[NewJeffCT]

11. She also repeated the myth

that Clinton's approvals increased after he was acquitted.

[ehrnst]

12. Well, to be fair, so did CNN, Gallup, NYT...

(AllPolitics, December 20) -- In the wake of the House of Representatives' approval of two articles of impeachment, Bill Clinton's approval rating has jumped 10 points to 73 percent, the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows.

That's not only an all-time high for Clinton, it also beats the highest approval rating President Ronald Reagan ever had.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/

The facts are straightforward: Bill Clinton received the highest job approval ratings of his administration during the Lewinsky/impeachment controversy. As the Lewinsky situation unfolded, Clinton's job approval went up, not down, and his ratings remained high for the duration of the impeachment proceedings:

Bill Clinton's mean job approval rating, 1st quarter 1993 through 1st quarter, 1999 was 53.8
Bill Clinton's mean job approval rating for the five years preceding 1998 was 51.3
Bill Clinton's mean job approval rating in 1998 was 63.8
Bill Clinton's average job approval rating for 1998 was thus 10 points above his overall administration to-date average
Bill Clinton's average job approval rating for 1998 was thus 12.5 points above his administration average for the five years preceding 1998
Bill Clinton's average job approval rating for 1998 was 5.7 points above that of the previous year, 1997, which in turn was higher than that of any of the four years which preceded it
Bill Clinton's job approval rating in the first quarter during which the Lewinsky situation became public knowledge (1st quarter 1998) jumped 5.6 points compared to the immediately preceding quarter

https://news.gallup.com/poll/4111/clinton-receives-record-high-job-approval-rating-after-impeachment-vot.aspx

And it provided one more piece of evidence of the startling political resilience of Mr. Clinton: one day after he became the second President in the nation's history to be impeached, 72 percent of respondents said they approved of how he was handling his job. Mr. Clinton's job approval rating actually increased since last week, when it was 66 percent.

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/21/us/impeachment-polls-public-support-for-president-for-closure-emerges-unshaken.html

[uponit7771]

15. Clinton was polling above average among republicans, Red Don will NEVER EVER poll that high among

... democrats.

Apples and pot holes.

But the more important issue is democrats didn't win control house or senate post impeachment in 98 or 2000.

I know I know, Gore was cheated ... if that's the case it defeats the 3rd term sophistry.

There's few cogent political reason to ... NOT ... impeach.

There's plenty reasons to impeach before election cause that's what we got.

[ehrnst]

17. It looks like you didn't read my post before replying.

But the more important issue is democrats didn't win control house or senate post impeachment in 98 or 2000.

Apples and pot holes.

There's few cogent political reason to ... NOT ... impeach.

You mean like it won't remove him from office?

There's plenty reasons to impeach before election cause that's what we got.

What reasons are those? You don't think the news reporting daily on his fighting every subpoena, him telling his inner circle not to testify, frantically trying to use executive privilege to obstruct justics can't be done without impeachment?

[uponit7771]

20. Sigh ...

You mean like it won't remove him from office?

Which isn't necessary to expose Red Don and lower his approval like it did with Clinton among republicans before the 2000 elections.

What reasons are those?

Lower his approval ratings among on the edge MAGA Cultist

You don't think the news reporting daily on his fighting every subpoena, him telling his inner circle not to testify, frantically trying to use executive privilege to obstruct justics can't be done without impeachment?

Of course it can, I'm not saying go throw process to get whats needed and have a 2 element attack against Red Don ... I'm just saying at the end of all that have impeachment hearings.

OK e ... I got 2 rolleye emojis to your one

[NewJeffCT]

23. Gallup's article disagrees with the timeline

They also use approvals from his entire presidency as a comparison and Clinton's 2nd term approvals were much higher.

The impeachment in the House took place in December 1998. There were no hearings before that like there would be with Trump.

His approval ratings for the four months BEFORE the impeachment was 63-66%. Never once was it below 63%.

The four days BEFORE the impeachment vote, there was an extremely popular four day bombing campaign in Iraq that contributed to the bump in the polls as well.

The poll released the day after the impeachment vote in the House had Clinton at 73% - I'm sure partly due to Democrats coming together over impeachment, but also the bombing campaign, which had a 78-18% approval rating nationally.

Clinton was at 68% right after he was acquitted by the Senate in February of 1999

30 days AFTER he was acquitted, Clinton was down to 62% approval - below any point in the four months before the Impeachment Vote in December of 1998.

Still another 30 days later in April of 1999, he was down to 59% approval and he never went over 60% for the remainder of 1999. He was now damaged goods in the media and to Al Gore and fellow Democrats.

So, the actual timeline shows that Clinton dropped 14% off of his December 1998 high (Bombing and Impeachment Vote) and 9% after he was acquitted.

[onenote]

28. The House voted to commence an impeachment inquiry in October 1998

While the Judiciary Committee largely relied on the Starr report, it did hold several days of hearings in November and December 1998 and heard from a number of witnesses, including not only Starr, but several retired federal judges, former US Attorney Generals, several law school professors, etc.

[NewJeffCT]

29. Thanks

He was in the 63-66% approval range that entire time, and also the two months before that.

[uponit7771]

13. So you believe 2020 presidential election will be more free and fair than 2016? thx in advance

[ehrnst]

14. I am not in a position to make that judgment at this time. You're welcome.

Do you believe that Impeachment will remove him? Thx in advance.

[uponit7771]

18. Then waiting for elections is a fools errand and we'll have better chances of removing or ...

... fully exposing Red Don with impeachment than depending on an election systems that has been compromised down to the state and local levels electoral boards.

Trump will get help from Russia again, there's no reason to believe he wont.

[ehrnst]

19. Are you saying that Democratic leaders are sitting around just "waiting?"

Maybe you don't know about all the investigations going on now, the daily coverage of him fighting every subpoena....

So, tell us how impeachment will remove him before the 2020 elections, when we know that the Senate won't let it happen. If you have a magic wand that will make the Senate Republicans defy their base, by all means, let our leaders who "are just sitting around waiting for 2020" know.

[uponit7771]

21. No, people are intimating 2020 elections will solve anything when there's no reason to believe they

... will be more free and fair than 2016 which wasn't free and fair at all.

Again, removing isn't the minimum goal ... fully exposing Red Don and republicans in the senate covering for him is.

If he can be removed before 2020 then great, he can't be removed at all if there's no vote.

[mcar]

22. Thanks for this

[Duppers]

24. "Judge"?

Excuse me, what judge?

Impeachment is ultimately decided by the American public, how much they know/learn, and how much they become fed up with tRump. These decisions do not deal with legalities but opinions. And televised hearings will certainly influence public opinions, especially those mostly apolitical voters who don't pay attention until it's all they're hearing ...and perhaps even a few of the illiterate humpers.

Their senators will cast their votes according to what they believe with keep them in office
>.<

So, let's have the hearings; give them no more "legislative excuses" for not turning documents over. Let's drag the hearings out and not call for a vote until we think the public has heard enough to turn the tide in the Senate. That way, the Senate will less likely to vote no on impeachment.

Tell me why I'm wrong.

[lapucelle]

34. K&R