- Joined
- Sep 6, 2019
- Messages
- 21,578
- Reaction score
- 19,530
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Continued from the post above...
Part 2.
3. Here is another important difference that has been reported on:
The House’s findings would not automatically be admitted into evidence.
McConnell Impeachment Rules Modify Clinton Precedent
So, in conclusion, despite your claim to the contrary in a previous post in this thread, there are some differences, important differences, between the rules adopted during the Clinton impeachment trial, and the present trial.
And, also, more importantly, there are significant differences between the process that lead up to the trial that could be resolved, by the Senate, in favor of the pursuit of truth that simply isn't being done in this case. That's important, but you say very little about any of that.
I know you care about the truth.
So if you care about the truth...why do you keep putting forward arguments...the consequence of which...results in lending support to a man who has lied over 16,000 times since assuming office?
Part 2.
3. Here is another important difference that has been reported on:
The House’s findings would not automatically be admitted into evidence.
When the Clinton trial opened, the Senate “admitted into evidence,” printed and shared with senators all records generated by the House impeachment inquiry into Mr. Clinton. Not so this time.
Though the House’s evidence from the Trump impeachment inquiry would still be printed and shared with senators, it would only be formally considered by the Senate as part of its official record if a majority of senators voted to do so. That vote could only take place after the Senate decided whether to call witnesses and seek additional documents — that is, as the trial moves toward a conclusion.
A senior Republican aide in the Senate said the change reflected a fundamental difference in the Clinton and Trump cases. In the Clinton case, the House’s evidentiary record largely consisted of materials compiled by Ken Starr, the independent counsel.
This time, House Democrats conducted their impeachment inquiry entirely themselves, without the benefit of a Justice Department investigation. The aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity to detail internal strategy, argued that in doing so, the House had denied Mr. Trump proper due process rights afforded to Mr. Clinton, suggesting the current president was not given a chance to contest the House’s record.
The House invited Mr. Trump to mount a defense before the Judiciary Committee during its impeachment proceeding, including requesting witnesses and documents, but the president’s legal team declined, saying it would not dignify an inquiry it deemed illegitimate with a response.
By not admitting the House impeachment inquiry’s findings into evidence at the outset, Mr. McConnell, too, is in effect treating them as illegitimate.
McConnell Impeachment Rules Modify Clinton Precedent
So, in conclusion, despite your claim to the contrary in a previous post in this thread, there are some differences, important differences, between the rules adopted during the Clinton impeachment trial, and the present trial.
And, also, more importantly, there are significant differences between the process that lead up to the trial that could be resolved, by the Senate, in favor of the pursuit of truth that simply isn't being done in this case. That's important, but you say very little about any of that.
I know you care about the truth.
So if you care about the truth...why do you keep putting forward arguments...the consequence of which...results in lending support to a man who has lied over 16,000 times since assuming office?
Last edited: