• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will the Senate impeachment be fair, honest and impartial?

Will the Senate conduct a fair, honest and impartial impeachment?

  • Total voters
    37
Moderate Right said:
Mueller investigated for two years and found that neither Trump or his campaign knowingly conspired with Russia. And we know from a Supreme Court case who voted 9 - 0 that Obama did abuse his power.
Click to expand...

Umm they did not find that information, They said they could not prove that he did. Who cares about Obama right now? this is a conversation about Trump. Unless you are trying to compare the two then I agree both should be kicked out for abusing power unfortunately we can no longer do that with Obama.
 
Moderate Right said:
Mueller investigated for two years and found that neither Trump or his campaign knowingly conspired with Russia. And we know from a Supreme Court case who voted 9 - 0 that Obama did abuse his power.
Click to expand...

The Mueller report states that Trump obstructed justice ten times and might be guilty of conspiracy. The investigation indicted dozens and sent a members of Trump's cabinet to prison.
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
Ahhhhhhhhh. Now comes the confession that the House had zero evidence to impeach Trump.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhhh there it is.

You finally admit even if trump is guilty you dont want him impeached.


Finally!@!!!
 
Moderate Right said:
Then why are you afraid to let the courts decide the issue?
Click to expand...

Because they are deciding to not bring evidence to either exonerate or convict. Would you be happy with a trial going this way all over the country? Screw it no new evidence in any trials once they hit the courts. Sound good to you?
 
I voted other. Mainly because of the wording of "fair and impartial". All indications voting will go along Party lines in the Senate. Just like in the House. So one could ask was the impeachment charges passed in the House fair and impartial?
 
Moderate Right said:
What you are afraid of is that you didn't have enough evidence in the first place but impeached anyway.
Click to expand...

They had evidence for Obstruction. I notice you ignored my question there.
 
mike2810 said:
I voted other. Mainly because of the wording of "fair and impartial". All indications voting will go along Party lines in the Senate. Just like in the House. So one could ask was the impeachment charges passed in the House fair and impartial?
Click to expand...

No, one can't. That's stupid. Republicans could afford to sit on their hands and it was still sure to pass. It was all risk no reward to rock the boat.
 
Moderate Right said:
Translation:

1. Yes, the House was unfair, dishonest, and partial

2. we don't need more evidence because we have more than enough already.
Click to expand...

"We" as in the Party of Trump. You and I, along with everyone on Congress, knows Trump could shoot a child in the head on the White House lawn and he wouldn't be impeached. The reason "we don't need more evidence" is because the "we", meaning the Party of Trump, doesn't want any more evidence. They don't want Bolton or Rudy to testify, they don't want the records of the State department or anyone else. It's a cover-up. I know it and I think you are smart enough to know it.
 
Drawdown said:
It is his privilege to do with as he likes. He has no duty to prove his innocence. The House has a duty to prove his guilt if they are pursuing this. So far, their case seems wanting of actual direct evidence not based on hearsay, assumption, etc.
Click to expand...

They have all the evidence they need for Obstruction. And no he can't do what he likes America was founded on the principle that laws affect everyone. Even the President.
 
Moderate Right said:
Yup, like it or not, the Constitution gave Democrats in the House the power to impeach and the Constitutionprovides that the Republican Senate will try the case, needing a 2/3's vote to remove Trump from office. So, technically, neither side is going against the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the Constitution also calls out "high crimes and misdemeanors" as the criteria for impeachment, neither of the two charges meet those requirements.
 
daeler said:
They have all the evidence they need for Obstruction. And no he can't do what he likes America was founded on the principle that laws affect everyone. Even the President.
Click to expand...

I suspect in about a week you are going to discover that they didn't have evidence to convict him of anything. He will win because of the principles of law that the democrats have been trying to subvert, including his LEGAL right to executive privilege.
 
Drawdown said:
I suspect in about a week you are going to discover that they didn't have evidence to convict him of anything. He will win because of the principles of law that the democrats have been trying to subvert, including his LEGAL right to executive privilege.
Click to expand...

And no one will hear from Bolton.


America suffers
 
Drawdown said:
I suspect in about a week you are going to discover that they didn't have evidence to convict him of anything. He will win because of the principles of law that the democrats have been trying to subvert, including his LEGAL right to executive privilege.
Click to expand...

You are just ignoring that Obstruction charge there aren't you?
 
daeler said:
You are just ignoring that Obstruction charge there aren't you?
Click to expand...

Nope. I have said repeatedly from the beginning this is the one count for which there can be no conviction because he invoked Executive privilege and the democrats refused to litigate the issue. I would add that all the witnesses who testified after being ordered not to should also not be considered because the privilege belonged to the POTUS and not the witness.
 
Drawdown said:
Nope. I have said repeatedly from the beginning this is the one count for which there can be no conviction because he invoked Executive privilege and the democrats refused to litigate the issue. I would add that all the witnesses who testified after being ordered not to should also not be considered because the privilege belonged to the POTUS and not the witness.
Click to expand...

But you can't evoke Executive privilege to cover up a crime.
 
Rising Sun said:
Thanks for your opinion but I fail to see what hasn't been fair or impartial except for the Trump stonewalling. Are you denying that Trump ordered a cover-up by ordering staff to disobey subpoenas and departments to withhold documents? What kind of innocent man hides evidence?

3mzvv0.jpg
Click to expand...

No. Since the House was so "even handed" with their prosecution, let's see if they can sell the facts they used to impeach. If not, shut this farce down and let's get on with America's business. If so, go for it.
 
daeler said:
But you can't evoke Executive privilege to cover up a crime.
Click to expand...

You can to not responde to the false accusation of a crime. I couldn't give a rat's ass about Trump. What I do care about is both procedural and substantive due process. The democrats in the House willfully and knowing did everything they could to bypass Trump's rights. Regardless of why they find him not guilty, when the Senate does it will be a victory for those rights and a deterrence to try this BS again.
 
Moderate Right said:
You are connecting the dots you want to as far as a personal favor goes. It's all a rorschach test and you see what you want to see. In addition, the aid was only held up for two weeks and Ukraine didn't even know it was being held up and it did not effect their military. With you guys it is always Trump wanted to do this, might do that, maybe did that, could have done this, is thinking about doing this .........................................
Click to expand...

ROFL When someone says things like "with you guys", they are not moderates; they are full blown partisans.
 
Drawdown said:
You can to not responde to the false accusation of a crime. I couldn't give a rat's ass about Trump. What I do care about is both procedural and substantive due process. The democrats in the House willfully and knowing did everything they could to bypass Trump's rights. Regardless of why they find him not guilty, when the Senate does it will be a victory for those rights and a deterrence to try this BS again.
Click to expand...

People get fired all the time. Who cares? You act like someone is being sentenced to death.
 
it's absolutely 100% completely fair.

I remember being told VERY clearly on this board by other posters, during the House impeachment hearings that however they did it, it was just too bad because the house has that power, this is a political process, AND elections matter.

well, you reap what you sow.
 
Drawdown said:
You can to not responde to the false accusation of a crime. I couldn't give a rat's ass about Trump. What I do care about is both procedural and substantive due process. The democrats in the House willfully and knowing did everything they could to bypass Trump's rights. Regardless of why they find him not guilty, when the Senate does it will be a victory for those rights and a deterrence to try this BS again.
Click to expand...

See this is the kind of ignorance I am talking about. It was an investigation, name one investigation that allowed the accused to have lawyers present while the police detectives questioned witnesses or sought clues. They did not bypass any rights when they did the "investigation"
 
Hypothetical said:
it's absolutely 100% completely fair.

I remember being told VERY clearly on this board by other posters, during the House impeachment hearings that however they did it, it was just too bad because the house has that power, this is a political process, AND elections matter.

well, you reap what you sow.
Click to expand...

There is a difference to a trial and a investigation. If you don't understand that difference maybe you shouldn't post about it.
 
daeler said:
There is a difference to a trial and a investigation. If you don't understand that difference maybe you shouldn't post about it.
Click to expand...

LOL! good one, that's hilarious.
 
daeler said:
See this is the kind of ignorance I am talking about. It was an investigation, name one investigation that allowed the accused to have lawyers present while the police detectives questioned witnesses or sought clues. They did not bypass any rights when they did the "investigation"
Click to expand...

The courts exist to settle these disputes. The democrats elected not to go to Court and follow the clearly established procedures for handling these matters. They subverted the very intent of the Constitution in their rush to further polarize the nation because that is the only thing they have going for them. The Congress are not the police though they certainly have rallied up a lot of storm troopers. They very much did violate the President's rights by taking testimony from witnesses over whom Trump exerted his privilege.
 
smallvoice said:
No. Since the House was so "even handed" with their prosecution, let's see if they can sell the facts they used to impeach. If not, shut this farce down and let's get on with America's business. If so, go for it.
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution does the House prosecute? They investigate and impeach, but not try the President. It's up to the Senate to "prosecute" or not. Today, it appears not. In fact, it reeks of a cover-up due to the coordination between the Senate leadership and the WH, the refusal to admit evidence and witnesses to the Senate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom