Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The Dalles chronicle. (The Dalles, OR) 1998-2020 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 11, 2020)
A4 Weekend of January 11-12, 2020 The Dalles Chronicle TheDallesChronicle.com OPINION How might testimony work in a Senate impeachment trial? F ORMER NATIONAL SECURI- ty adviser John Bolton shook up the Trump impeachment standoff recently with his an- nouncement that, if subpoenaed, he is “prepared to testify” before a Senate trial. It’s still not clear, of course, when or even if a trial might occur, since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is withholding the articles of impeachment. But if there is a trial, and if the Senate subpoenas Bolton, he won’t fight it. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer has demanded the trial include witnesses. Schumer spe- cifically wants the Senate to hear testimony from Bolton, current White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and two other White House officials, Robert Blair and Michael Duffey. To testify or not to testify? The potential witnesses have a lot of thinking to do. Their situation is un- precedented. There is no guidebook to tell them what to do. So here are some of the factors that Bolton, Mulvaney and other possible wit- nesses have to weigh: House vs. Senate Neither Bolton nor Mulvaney testified before the House impeach- ment inquiry. Bolton did not re- ceive a subpoena. Mulvaney defied one, at the direction of the White House. Bolton’s former deputy, time it seems likely that some, or perhaps all, of the conversations between Bolton and the president, or Mulvaney and the president, would be covered by executive Byron privilege. York It is not clear whether the White House will assert the privilege. But there seems little doubt that the White House, should it seek to bar Charles Kupperman, was subpoe- the president’s closest advisers from naed and asked a court to decide answering at least some questions, whether he would be required would have some legal options to testify. At that point, House to pursue. It’s not clear that they Democrats abruptly withdrew the would be winning options, but they subpoena. Pelosi, impeachment leader Rep. Adam Schiff, and others could involve some fighting in court as the Senate trial gets underway. claimed that a court fight would The Roberts Factor take too long, given the urgency that House and Senate impeachment Trump be removed from office as proceedings are entirely different soon as possible. So they dropped from each other, and one of the big- the issue. A judge later declared the matter gest differences is the presence in moot. the Senate trial of a representative Now, the questions surround- of the judicial branch of govern- ment, in the person of the chief ing potential testimony remain unanswered. If there was a problem justice of the Supreme Court. The Constitution says the chief justice requiring judicial resolution in the will “preside” over the Senate trial. House, wouldn’t there also be a On the other hand, the Constitution problem when the Senate seeks gives the Senate the “sole power” testimony? The answer is yes, but possibly in to try the impeachment. So it is highly unlikely that Chief Justice different ways. First, it seems ex- tremely unlikely that a court would John Roberts will take charge of the rule that the president’s aides have Trump impeachment trial. Of the Bill Clinton trial in 1999, then-Chief a blanket immunity that would prevent them from even appearing Justice William Rehnquist wrote, “I before the Senate. But at the same did nothing in particular, and I did it very well.” Roberts probably won’t do much more. But he will be there, even if he is just a rubber stamp -- in other words, he will give the imprimatur of the judicial branch to the Senate’s actions. So, say the Senate, with the chief justice presiding, voted to issue a subpoena to Bolton, or Mulvaney or anyone else. And say the recipient of the subpoena challenged it in court. How exactly would that work? Federal judges are not in the business of overruling the chief justice of the Supreme Court. If an impeachment dispute ends up in court, Roberts’ role could make the decisions of lower court judges—in other words, the entire federal judiciary—awkward at best. Show Up, Yes. Answer Questions, No. Finally, even if Bolton or Mulvaney or others were subpoe- naed, and even if they challenged the subpoena in court, and even if they lost, there is a difference between showing up to testify and actually answering questions. There is no doubt that both men, and perhaps others, could honor a subpoena, appear and then decline to answer a number of questions on the basis of executive privilege. If executive privilege covers anything, it is a president’s delib- erations with his chief of staff and his national security adviser on the issue of foreign policy. The privi- lege is the president’s, not Bolton’s or Mulvaney’s or anyone else’s. Bolton’s brief statement said that he is “prepared to testify,” but it did not get into details of whether he would answer all questions or whether he would follow White House direc- tions, if there were any, or what else he might or might not do. That will be critical if Bolton, Mulvaney or other witnesses appear before the Senate. Each will be allowed to have a lawyer pres- ent, and it seems likely that White House lawyers will be present, too. Those lawyers could raise privi- lege issues repeatedly, depending on what is asked. Testimony that is billed as dramatic, and even explosive, might be somewhat less exciting in reality. Bolton’s statement is an im- portant development. But there is a lot more to the question of how testimony would work in a Senate impeachment trial. It might not even happen—at least four Republican senators would have to join minority Democrats’ call for witnesses. And even if it does, it could quickly turn into a very complicated affair. Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner. Iran. Sen. Ron Wyden, Sen., Jeff Merkley and Rep. Greg Walden, we need you to clearly and unequiv- ocally state that you condemn this strike and are opposed to war with Iran. Trump has positioned us on the precipice of war, and Congress may be our only hope of stopping it. Bonnie New Hood River because their sense of decency has long been smothered by their fear of the Trump machine. Trump ordered the assassination of Gen. Qassim Suleimani last week without a plan, without considering the safety of our troops overseas, without consulting our allies or even the Pentagon! This was the act of an impulsive, fearful, erratic, dangerous man-baby. There was no evidence of any “imminent threat” from Iran or this General. Sound fa- miliar? How about WMDs? A made up reason to tear the middle east apart so a president could flex his muscles. Where did it get us the last time? Oh yes, that’s right..We are still fighting that war after billions of dollars and thousands of lives have been lost. Start a fight and then blame the other guy for fighting back. That’s the Republican play book. That will be Trump’s reason for attacking Iran, because they fought back but he’ll say they started it. Just like Bush blamed Iraq for what the Saudis did on 911. Are we that stupid that we’ll fall for it again? The chicken hawks like Pompeo and Bolton have wanted this war with Iran for decades and they have the perfect fool in the White House to get it going. Greg Walden’s statement on the killing of Suleimani shows his typi- cal lack of spine and integrity in his failure to call out Trump’s utter lack of diplomacy and planning. His next job after leaving office this Fall better be worth selling his soul for. Trump and his Republican enablers pose a greater threat to our safety, way of life, democracy and our position in the world than Iran ever has. Have you no sense of decency Mr Walden? Susan Lannak Hood River Guest Commentary YOUR VOICE Thank you Walden of Gen. Qassim Suleimani, a top commander in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps. This would be To the editor, equivalent to a foreign government Thank you for printing assassinating our Vice President Congressman Walden’s state- outside the Toronto airport. ment regarding the never-ending This was NOT a defensive action, sham ‘impeachment.’ I found the and comes at a time of escalating statement to be measured, clear, tension with Iran. We need skilled factual, to the point and totally diplomacy with Iran, not an isolat- correct. My statement regarding the ed, erratic nut with a trigger. The insidious three year anti-American U.S. Constitution specifically tasks ‘impeachment’ waste of time and Congress with decisions on war, so money efforts by ‘The League of where are they? Never-Trumpers’ can be summed In recent years, and despite up in two words: Hate crimes. Trump’s thorough incompetence Gary R. VanOrman and dangerousness as a leader, The Dalles Congress has ceded authority over the military to the executive branch. Congress is a co-equal branch of government that holds tremen- dous power to check Trump’s recklessness. Congress must step To the editor, in immediately to rein in Trump’s I’m horrified and irate that catastrophic escalation to war with Trump ordered the assassination Congressional action needed No sense of decency? To the editor, “Have you no sense of decency?” These were the brave words spoken by Joseph Welch to Joe McCarthy which finally started the end of his tyranny over Congress and the American people in 1954. Where is our Joseph Welch? Certainly not Greg Walden or any other Republican that I know of Did the chicken cross the road, or not? On Jan. 2, at 8:53 a.m., The Dalles Police were dispatched to E. 12th and Thompson streets on report of a chicken “in the middle of the road, across from the church.” By 8:56 a.m., an officer was on scene and, according to the police log, there was “no chicken in sight.” Not only do we not know why a chicken was in the middle of the road, we have no idea whether it actually crossed the road or not— perhaps it flew the coop, perhaps it returned. Another chance to answer the age-old question “Why did the chicken cross the road?” is lost forever, despite the remarkable prompt response from by the city police officer. Chickens may be a mystery, but I do know why the deer crossed the road: because a car was coming. I even understand why the deer crossed the road right in front of the car, which hit it. I almost did that myself once. I had waded about four miles of creek in the dark and From the Editor Mark Gibson was walking the road home when then the sudden glow of headlights around the corner startled me into running. I couldn’t run to the near side because there was a fence, so I crossed the road in the glare of the lights and crashed down the bank. I remember being puzzled as to why I had done it. My best guess is that it’s hard to judge distance and speed in the dark, and if you are in tune with the quiet things a car is like a nightmare. It was a very strange experience, to have almost been a roadkill. I’ve hit a few deer—one did in the Subaru and the Jeep never really recovered—but I’ve learned to drive slower and am more observant. I haven’t killed anyone for years. Not everyone is careful, of course, but at least now that serves some purpose: It’s legal to harvest road-killed deer in Oregon, and in the majority of cases a lot of good meat can be salvaged. I haven’t done it since the law changed, but in my experience the hardest part was getting the animal home. Now that it’s legal, that shouldn’t be too hard. The second-hardest part is butch- ering, which I won’t get into. Years ago there was a hot-spot on Browns Creek where an alfalfa farmer had put up a new deer fence. At the sudden appearance of a vehi- cle, the deer, eating next to the fence and have only one direction to run, did exactly what I did as a boy: they dashed across the road to the safety of the woods on the other side. It’s a real gamble, though. You have to decide on the instant, because if you hesitate you don’t get across quick enough. Mom makes it, maybe a couple siblings, but many of them wait too long and make the wrong decision. My route home these days has one “corner of death” and several high-risk areas, in terms of roadkill. A roadkill diet could be pretty varied, along the route: ground and grey squirrels are common, deer frequent and occasionally turkeys are available as well, but you would have to check the regulations if you are tempted. If I find a deer or elk by the road, and choose to salvage it, I would have to file a Roadkill Salvage Permit online with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife within 24 hours. According to ODFW, only deer and elk acciden- tally struck by a vehicle may be salvaged; the entire carcass of the animal—including gut piles—must be removed from the road and right of way; and the animal can be salvaged for human consumption only. Intentionally hitting a deer or elk in order to salvage it remains unlawful. There are other rules and notic- es, and a lot of disclaimers regard- ing the safety of eating salvaged meat. Butchering an animal is a lot of work, however. Instead of waiting for a deer to cross the road, I will probably be better served stopping at the grocery on my way home and buying that chicken, whether it crossed the road or not. Later on July 2 (11:55 a.m.), a The Dalles Police officer was dispatched to the 100 block of west 14th on reports of a dog in the middle of the road. The officer arrived at 11:59 a.m. The dog did cross the road, and “was last seen in the 1500 block of Liberty Street,” according to the log. No mention was made of any chickens, however.