Glenn Kirshner: MOVE FOR A MISTRIAL NOW

[Grasswire2]

Glenn Kirschner
@glennkirschner2
·

1. AG Barr’s DOJ says we can’t prosecute a criminal president. So it’s beyond dispute that the president IS above our criminal laws. 2. McConnell blocked all incriminating witnesses, documents & evidence from being used in the Senate impeachment hearing (don’t call it a “trial”).

Trump’s tax returns & financial documents to determine if he’s committed tax crimes & financial fraud (as Michael Cohen testified he did). If SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump, allowing him to hide from the people the evidence of his financial and tax crimes ...

Trump will also be above our civil laws. If he is above our criminal laws thanks to Barr, above impeachment thanks to McConnell and above our civil laws thanks to SCOTUS, Trump will have hit the trifecta of dictatorship. And our republic will be lost.

Many have asked if the House managers can move for a mistrial. Here are my quick thoughts: I wish Schiff WOULD make a motion for a mistrial based on, among other things, the revelation of Cipollone’s grossly unethical conduct/conflicts of interest. I wouldn’t be deterred that...

We need to send this issue, as well as others (Trump’s lawyers blatantly lying) through the courts as separate charges. Otherwise, we set the precedent that anything goes if you can convince a biased jury to acquit.
·
the Senate rules may not contemplate/authorize a mistrial motion. I would argue the rules as adopted NEVER contemplated the president’s lawyers would have hidden from the Senate, the Chief Justice and the American people such egregious, disqualifying information (as recently

disclosed by John Bolton). Cipollone perpetrated a unimaginable fraud on the Senate and the American people and the Dems should not go quietly into that dark acquittal. Move for a mistrial and see what the Chief Justice says.

[Bayard]

1. Sounds like a good idea to me

Can't McConnell nix it?

[calimary]

41. And to me also.

[Grasswire2]

55. THE POINT IS TO ASK BEFORE ACQUITTAL.

Ask for the mistrial immediately.

There are grounds. Lead defense counsel is an undeclared fact witness.

[bluestarone]

2. While i WHOLE HEARTEDLY AGREE i bet

It would be a NO GO! ROBERTS is in on it. (in my mind he proved that by saying he would not break a tie vote)

[Grasswire2]

3. doesn't matter

MUST make a stand, even if Repugs shut it down.

Must drive home in the public eye the totalitarian nature of GOP.

Must not end this with a whimper.

[bluestarone]

5. Fully agree here too!

ALL FOR IT! would be interesting for sure!

[KPN]

18. Yes exactly. Come on Dems -- make a stand.

[Grasswire2]

20. I've often rued the day when Gore backed down and asked Black Caucus to let it go.

Black Caucus was BEGGING senate to refuse to accept the Florida vote.

Al Gore asked them to stop. (In order to protect his future electability, presumably)

Dems should have forced Bush to drag that presidency from Gore til the bitter end.

[usaf-vet]

27. EXACTLY!

[KPN]

37. Also for the good of our nation, I really do

believe that he believed that. Wrongly. It’s been a steep downhill since then with the exception of Obama’s 1st two years. The final 6 were okay due to the self-respect he brought to America and the total lack of drama, but otherwise, on balance, the slope was still downward due to the Moscow Mitch and KKKGOP with the assist of Faux News and RW domination of airwaves.

The tide will someday turn completely and right our ship, but I’m afraid it won’t be in my lifetime. I am deeply saddened.

[Texin]

63. There were subsequent reports that filtered out that member of Gore's family were threatened.

I remember hearing and reading about it following Gore's concession speech to Bush. I don't doubt them. I believe the rethugs then, as now, would be perfectly willing to go there - and to take it further. I especially think this is true now.

[sprinkleeninow]

51. Strange and disheartening why/how that came to pass. I agree with you. eom

[orleans]

60. that was absolutely heartbreaking

and infuriating

[certainot]

64. dems were reacting to the 'popular consensus' coming out of limbaugh's ass, just like this

came out of limbaugh's ass

roger stone even boasted of how he used talk radio to shut down the recount

dems/liberals/the left are really fucking stupid to keep ignoring a few hundred coordinated liars on 1500 radio stations while they decide whaat iss ansd isn't acceptable.

that is why we're in this orange asshole disasster now, why the gop is full of sacks of shit - and dems don't have a clue and don't even poll for it

[lastlib]

21. At the very least, get ON THE RECORD!

(again) that that little POS Ship-o'-Loony LIED and CHEATED and PERJURED before the United States Senate!

[Grasswire2]

22. yep yep nt

[Pepsidog]

59. Absolutely must be done.

[dchill]

4. K&R.

[bluestarone]

6. To add here

Maybe we should be SCREAMING MIS- TRIAL at SOTU speech? THEN WALKOUT!

[onecaliberal]

8. That!

[usaf-vet]

29. I think Pelosi should SHUT THE CAMERAS OFF. It is her House NOW. Let him rant to only Congress.

[bluestarone]

33. Well i say let THEM have their speech AFTER

We scream MISTRIAL and WALKOUT!

[usaf-vet]

36. Do both walkout and shut off the cameras. WE HAVE TO START PLAYING HARDBALL.

No more nice guys and gals. They have established how low the bar is.

Here are a few clicks down the list is too long to even attempt more than five.

MoscowMitch denying Obama's Presidency
MoscowMitch denying hundreds of federal court judges even a hearing.
MoscowMitch STEALING a SCOTUS seat from OBAMA.
MoscowMitch Announcing he was fixing the Impeachment trial before it started.
MoscowMitch Not allowing witnesses and documents.

SO with those 5 clicks down, I say walkout and cameras off is more than deserved retribution.

[BKDem]

30. Dems should boycott the SOTU.

Why should anyone listen to a word he says?

[Captain Zero]

54. Kick. THIS.

Or sit there dead silent the whole speech.

[VladmireTrumpkins]

62. boycott

I totally agree boycott or walk out when he declares he has been Totally exhonerated..as he certainly will

[SWBTATTReg]

7. Interesting. A mistrial would be interesting. If the mistrial portion happened to the Senate ...

portion of impeachment only. I suspect that John Roberts would be one the to rule on a mistrial motion, being that usually the defendant(s) and/or plaintiff(s) don't rule on mistrials (in the normal world).

Shouldn't there been a stronger vetting process of legal representation? If mischief occurred or lying, or requested documentation not provided, John Roberts should have been spoken up. Where were the witnesses? No trial w/o witnesses, w/o documentation, so in effect, this was no trial.

John Roberts should have been on top of this.

This whole thing is going to go down in history as a great farce/joke of the justice system, the gop is pretty well wiped out for the foreseeable future and the rule of law is forever tainted by the stain of this administration and the gop senate. Imagine our rights, etc. of the average American being protected by the likes of these people? I shutter to think about this.

[Grasswire2]

10. I happen to think that attorneys in a momentous event like this...

...should be sworn. Yes, their law license should preclude lying or conflicts of ethics (such as Cippolone's status as a fact witness) but a swearing in public view would be meaningful to many, I would think. It at least might put the fear of perjury on them. Make it voluntary, in fact, and we would see who was willing to openly make themselves vulnerable.

[SWBTATTReg]

11. I agree. But the senators sitting in on this swore an additional oath too, it didn't seem to ...

change anything. And, in truth, nothing will ever happen to them either. They made a mockery of this whole process. I was / still am wondering what Nancy Pelosi's purpose in sending the impeachment articles to the Senate when she had to know that this was going to happen...perhaps she's got some other things up her sleeves?

[Traildogbob]

23. Yes they did

And at the end of that oath, that said "So help me God". Yes, the party of Jesus, the party that says God sent trump. And yet, they lie in his face. Right at their God, right in his face. And....the party that shouted in the SOTU from Mr. President Barrack Obama, "You Lie". Abolish this GOP criminal Cult, top to bottom. If you are bowing to him in the name of God......you gonna shit your pants at your precious rapture. He ain't no fool, or says that majic book.

[lastlib]

26. I think she had to know that the end result would be acquittal in the GOPher Senate...

...with that knowledge, maybe her endgame was all about hanging it on the Repugs in the campaign. "See how dishonest they were? Vote 'em out!" I really can't see any other possibility except just feeble hope that they would actually get disgusted with the Shitgibbon and kick him out.

[tritsofme]

45. John Roberts doesn't run the trial, McConnell and his minions do.

A mistrial in the Senate, isn’t actually a thing.

[bluestarone]

9. Let's give this a KICK!

[Crabby Appleton]

12. Not going to happen

It's not a court, it's subject to the rules of Senate.

[Grasswire2]

13. not the point nt

[reACTIONary]

28. +10 nt.

[SCantiGOP]

46. Right, Crabby

but this post is in Fantasy Land.

[SunSeeker]

14. K & R

[Mersky]

15. Sounds good to me.

Will the CJ recognize these points that could lead to a mistrial in any other court setting?

[ProudProgressiveNow]

16. KR NT

[duforsure]

17. Also Parnas exposed many others were involved in this

So Graham didn't recuse himself and voted , and was involved. Also Nunes, Barr and others and no one recused themselves.

[eleny]

19. And then Dems should move to censure Trump

[in2herbs]

24. It should occur but don't agree. My bet is that Roberts would rule that the FISA warrant

was not entirely constitutional and therefore everything falls -- including the attempt to impeach and impeach and remove. IMO the courts are too corrupt to allow them to set precedent. IMO any rulings they issue will probably contain the same caveat that Bush v. Gore did --- you can't cite in future cases to support any claim.

[world wide wally]

25. We can only wonder why the US threw out the rule book to accommodate this particular fraud

[Anon-C]

31. Kick and Rec!

[bucolic_frolic]

32. McConnell has exploited, expanded, invented several holes not written in Constitutional stone

Anything not explicitly forbidden, that is usual in a court of law especially, ought to be allowed, or at least motioned.You at least go on the record.

Or why couldn't they amend it, ask for a delay ... there's new evidence of crookery surfacing the swamp each day

[reACTIONary]

34. It isn't a court of law...

... Roberts isn't acting as a judge in the usual sense of the word, and don't think such legal "motions" can be made to him. However, I think the Dems could propose a motion to the senate (not to Roberts) to declare a mistrial - but that would not pass, nor would it make much sense... What would they actually do if they declared a mistrial? Any different than what they did or will do anyway.

[Bradical79]

42. Yeah. Retrial wouldn't make any sense. Schiff would sound like an idiot.

The only thing the House can do as far as redoing the trial is to impeach him again, not that we would. Double Jeopardy doesn't apply to impeachment as it's not a criminal trial, so there's no reason to have a mistrial mechanism.

With the elections in 9 months, I think the best we can do until then is keep exposing more corruption, and let his toadies keep getting arrested and charged with a variety of crimes.

[onenote]

52. Another truly bad idea.

As others have pointed out, Roberts is not the "judge" in this trial. He is the presiding officer with the same powers that the VP or President Pro Tem of the Senate has in non-Presidential impeachments. And anything he does is subject to a Senate vote.

Moreover, do you really want Pence or a Republican member of the senate to have that power in a non-presidential impeachment?

[ancianita]

35. It wasn't trial enough to even be a "mistrial." It was a proceeding, not even an UN-trial. Schiff

and managers can't "move for mistrial" in a system that gives them a platform or legal standing.

Where would managers make a legal "move" for mistrial? Even Roberts says that SCOTUS does not adjudicate the workings of Senate rules or even has jurisdiction over the defense lawyers.

Even if documented evidence of a biased jury could be brought in an attempted "move," it's the constitutionally constructed institution they work in, the Senate Republicans, and not just Cipollone.

There's no constitutional remedy for any such legal "move."

No court would even hear the case.

The only remedy for the lawyers are their bar associations.

The only remedy for the Republican Senators are elections, not congressional hearings and not courts. They can't be forced out for breaking their oaths in any of the ways entertained here. Just censured for the duration of their terms.

[Grasswire2]

47. the credentials of the person offering the idea are substantial

"Fmr 30-yr fed prosecutor w/ @USAO_DC
, DC Chief of Homicide & @USArmy
JAG. "

So I'll take his opinion.

[ancianita]

49. Good luck with that. We'll see.

[DallasNE]

38. Brilliant Idea

Worst case Roberts defers it to a vote of the Senate. I would do it on Tuesday as well.

[Bradical79]

39. It's not possible -nt

[James48]

40. It's too late.

America has ended.

Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

It is gone.

[tritsofme]

43. "the Senate rules may not contemplate/authorize a mistrial motion"

Full stop. End of story. The end.

This rant is total nonsense.

[Grasswire2]

48. tell it to the person with some experience in the law who offered it.

Fmr 30-yr fed prosecutor w/ @USAO_DC
, DC Chief of Homicide & @USArmy
JAG.

What's your experience?

[tritsofme]

50. His words are showing that he is definitely not any type of expert on Senate impeachment trials.

It’s nonsense, maybe he had a few too many before the Big Game?

[bucolic_frolic]

56. The point is not that it can be done, the point is to energize and keep going

I think he doesn't want Dems to be demoralized, and to keep up the pressure on Republicans and Roberts.

My guess is he'd like a good job in the incoming Democratic adminstration too

[Grasswire2]

57. your credentials? nt

[tritsofme]

58. I've seen enough ridiculous appeals to authority with Alan Dershowitz this week.

If it makes you feel better to believe nonsense like this, so you can then complain when Democrats don’t do it, then please proceed.

[Mme. Defarge]

44. I was thinking along these lines last night.

Could Democratic senators walk of this show trial of n protest before a vote is taken? The stunt McConnell and company just pulled cannot, must not stand.

[Captain Zero]

53. Good idea. Make Roberts rule on it for historical record

To further record how this was a sabotaged and corrupt trial from the start. And to show how it really was NOT a trial at all with no witnesses and no evidence presented.

[onenote]

65. His ruling would be either

that he has no authority to order a mistrial or he would refer the motion to the Senate, which is the ultimate arbiter of impeachment trial motions, for it to vote.

It doesn't really matter, because Schumer has lawyers and advisors who are better lawyers and more astute in politics than Kirshner and wouldn't ever make such a motion.

[Crabby Appleton]

66. Thank you

[Karadeniz]

61. This is just what I said...where's my honorary law degree? And, the boycott!!

[oasis]

67. Go for it!

I'd love to see GOP heads explode.