The case for impeachment, said the cast of Tuesday's MSNBC Live, is such a slam dunk that the only way that the Senate could acquit President Trump is if they are too stupid to "understand the story." At least they wouldn't be Russian stooges.
MSNBC contributor and former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg, responding to host Stephanie Ruhle's inquiries about why Democrats included certain articles of impeachment, but not others, declared the number of articles to be irrelevant, because all they have to do is" adequately tell the story." Expanding on that thought he declared, "Barbara McQuade said the other day and I think she’s exactly right, prosecutors don't lose cases because they don't have the facts, prosecutors lose cases when the jury doesn't understand the story."
Realizing that his analogy was far from perfect because, as we have been repeatedly told, this a political process, not a legal one, Rosenberg tried to clean up his analogy, "your jury is not a group of men and women who promise to listen to the evidence and render impartial judgment, your jury is the United States Senate." He could have, but did not, included that the House are not prosecutors either, they are partisan politicians who began with a pre-determined conclusion.
Ruhle then turned to Heidi Przybyla for reporting on why Democrats included the two articles they did. Przybyla took the opportunity to condemn Republicans for not seeing facts and facts and for daring to not agree with, "Five hundred of the nation's best league minds agree that the president committed impeachable offenses."
After laying out the Democratic argument, she continued in the common media perception that being a political hack is somehow beneath law professors by citing left-wing Harvard professor Laurence Tribe who has been calling for Trump's impeachment since 2017, "He said that because they are trying to make this the tightest most narrowest possible case, they left [bribery] out because even though its obvious that’s what he did there is no common law history in English or American history to show that ... getting something like opposition research is quote unquote 'a thing of value.'"
She concluded by again condemning Republicans for rejecting facts and Tribe's and others' wisdom, "So because Democrats are trying to get as much support for this and we're operating in a universe where Republicans are challenging some of the most basic facts that 500 legal scholars agree Democrats want to make this case as airtight as possible."
Here is a transcript for the December 10 show:
MSNBC
MSNBC Live with Stephanie Ruhle
9:01 AM ET
CHUCK ROSENBERG: Yeah that’s a great question Stephanie, I'm looking for is whether or not the articles of impeachment, whatever you call them, and however many you have, adequately tell the story. Barbara McQuade said the other day and I think she’s exactly right, prosecutors don't lose cases because they don't have the facts, prosecutors lose cases when the jury doesn't understand the story and so the chapter headings are less important to me. The number of articles of impeachment are less important to me. Do they detail what they detail president did and do they adequately convey the facts. Now of course, my analogy isn’t perfect, Stephanie, because your jury is not a group of men and women who promise to listen to the evidence and render impartial judgment, your jury is the United States Senate, but do the articles adequately tell the story I hope so.
STEPHANIE RUHLE: Well, we’ll soon find out. I want to bring Heidi Przybyla in. Heidi, you have brand new reporting around the specifics of why they chose these articles of impeachment and why something like bribery, which many of us were expecting is left out.HEIDI PRZYBYLA: Yes Steph, we saw the argument yesterday that, there was a lot of smoke around whether a fact is a fact and what a fact is. The truth is 500 of the nation's best league minds agree that the president committed impeachable offenses, so what the Democrats have done here is boiled those down into their most essential arguments. Number one, on abuse of power, that the president used the office for his own personal gain over the interests of the nation, that he betrayed the national security of the country by hurting and hobbling a critical ally in Ukraine, and that C. he helped corrupt the election process of the country. That’s fulfilling all three of the founders most basic worries about a future president, and that warrant impeachment. According to my reporting last night, I spoke with Larry Tribe, who is one of the nation's top constitutional law experts at Harvard and he said that because they are trying to make this the tightest most narrowest possible case, they left that out because even though its obvious that’s what he did there is no common law history in English or American history to show that bribing a political opponent or getting something like opposition research is quote unquote “a thing of value.” So because Democrats are trying to get as much support for this and we're operating in a universe where Republicans are challenging some of the most basic facts that 500 legal scholars agree Democrats want to make this case as airtight as possible.
