White House agrees to full Senate trial if House impeaches Trump

[bongsaway]

There are 25 up for reelection. Who do you think will lose due to a vote to not remove the president? I think there are far more who would lose if they voted to remove.

That's called between a rock and a hard place. Vote to do nothing, pisses off many people, vote to remove him, pisses off many people. Take your choice. As to whom, beats me.

 

[Divine_Wind]

There are 25 up for reelection. Who do you think will lose due to a vote to not remove the president? I think there are far more who would lose if they voted to remove.

I think most intelligent, educated and sensible Americans understand it doesn't take 25 Senators to flip the Senate. It only takes a handful. The current spread:

 

[Chomsky]

...Just like the Constitution says. Regardless of the politics, the fact remains that the Democrats have made an accusation and they need to prove their case. When it gets to the Republican Senate for the actual trial and judgment, there are a few possible outcomes:

1) The House Democrats prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and the Senate Republicans, behind closed doors like with Nixon, push Trump to resign with some dignity to avoid conviction and eviction from office. This, IMO, is looking like the most likely outcome. Trump's hospital visit may be more politically precautionary than it is medically necessary.

2) The House Democrats prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and the Senate Republicans fail to convict risking a shellacking in November 2020 where the Democrats make further gains in the House and, possibly, take the Senate.

3) The Democrats fail to prove their case and end up looking foolish. FWIW, I consider this the least likely outcomes since, no matter how much I disagree with the Democratic agenda and Nancy Pelosi, I also believe she (and they) are not that fricking stupid. Like good lawyers, they'd never make a claim they didn't sincerely believe they could prove.

Regardless of my statement, I whole heatedly agree with all you wrote..

The reason for my statement - obviously - is because the proceedings are Constitutionally undefined, done at sole discretion of the Chamber, have no due process, and are not subject to judicial review. So it's hard for me to call it a "trial", although the Constitution does specifically say "try". So perhaps it is a "trial", just not one of statute.

 

[gdgyva]

...Just like the Constitution says. Regardless of the politics, the fact remains that the Democrats have made an accusation and they need to prove their case. When it gets to the Republican Senate for the actual trial and judgment, there are a few possible outcomes:

1) The House Democrats prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and the Senate Republicans, behind closed doors like with Nixon, push Trump to resign with some dignity to avoid conviction and eviction from office. This, IMO, is looking like the most likely outcome. Trump's hospital visit may be more politically precautionary than it is medically necessary.

2) The House Democrats prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and the Senate Republicans fail to convict risking a shellacking in November 2020 where the Democrats make further gains in the House and, possibly, take the Senate.

3) The Democrats fail to prove their case and end up looking foolish. FWIW, I consider this the least likely outcome since, no matter how much I disagree with the Democratic agenda and Nancy Pelosi, I also believe she (and they) are not that fricking stupid. Like good lawyers, they'd never make a claim they didn't sincerely believe they could prove.

prove to you?

prove to me?

prove to the average american?

are you old enough for Nixon? Do you know how many calls congressmen and senators were getting from everyday americans wanting Nixon's head

That is how bad the public sway was.....it was almost 70% to toss out on his ass....so he resigned

The public was not so enthralled at the perjury case for Clinton....and the % who wanted to convict was barely over 50%...about what it is for Trump

The public will make this judgement....not the senate....the number of calls each senator gets, pro and con, will determine whether or not he/she jumps ship

THere is no way in hell Trump will be found guilty at the 50-51% polling going on now....so the evidence better start rolling in that starts to persuade the general public

Otherwise Nancy and her democratic flock and in for a horrific shock

 

[Chomsky]

That's called between a rock and a hard place. Vote to do nothing, pisses off many people, vote to remove him, pisses off many people. Take your choice. As to whom, beats me.

Well, technically. Truth is, there's only maybe 5 or 6 states that have GOP senators that may be Purple or light Red. The rest are solid deep (enough) Red.

If those half-dozen Senators take heat, I'm sure McConnell will let them go their own way.

Where it will get interesting, is if the tide were to turn enough that McConnell believes he could lose the Senate. Will he give-up the Senate for Trump? That is the million dollar question! My suspicion is if it comes down to losing the Senate, Trump is too injured to weather the election and McConnell will let his Senators vote freely.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

In a normal courtroom, yes. But this is purely political.

Exactly. This whole thing is political. It is the biggest waste of time since the Clinton impeachment which at least they had him clearly committing perjury. Of course if being unfaithful perverts were not allowed in office we would be impeaching leaders non stop.

 

[Rexedgar]

Oh now it bothers you. For the last 3 years youve cheered on as elected democrats prejudged Trump during the collusion hoax, but now you want those who support him to sit down and be quiet.

That’s BS; vote for acquittal, if that’s what they are going to do, just stfu about it beforehand. I know this is a political process, but people keep comparing it to a judicial proceeding. At least pretend that it is impartial.

 

[Mr Person]

...Just like the Constitution says. Regardless of the politics, the fact remains that the Democrats have made an accusation and they need to prove their case. When it gets to the Republican Senate for the actual trial and judgment, there are a few possible outcomes:

1) The House Democrats prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and the Senate Republicans, behind closed doors like with Nixon, push Trump to resign with some dignity to avoid conviction and eviction from office. This, IMO, is looking like the most likely outcome. Trump's hospital visit may be more politically precautionary than it is medically necessary.

2) The House Democrats prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and the Senate Republicans fail to convict risking a shellacking in November 2020 where the Democrats make further gains in the House and, possibly, take the Senate.

3) The Democrats fail to prove their case and end up looking foolish. FWIW, I consider this the least likely outcome since, no matter how much I disagree with the Democratic agenda and Nancy Pelosi, I also believe she (and they) are not that fricking stupid. Like good lawyers, they'd never make a claim they didn't sincerely believe they could prove.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" applies only to criminal trials.

 

[Divine_Wind]

prove to you?

prove to me?

prove to the average american?

are you old enough for Nixon? Do you know how many calls congressmen and senators were getting from everyday americans wanting Nixon's head

That is how bad the public sway was.....it was almost 70% to toss out on his ass....so he resigned

The public was not so enthralled at the perjury case for Clinton....and the % who wanted to convict was barely over 50%...about what it is for Trump

The public will make this judgement....not the senate....the number of calls each senator gets, pro and con, will determine whether or not he/she jumps ship

THere is no way in hell Trump will be found guilty at the 50-51% polling going on now....so the evidence better start rolling in that starts to persuade the general public

Otherwise Nancy and her democratic flock and in for a horrific shock

Prove to "We, the People". Yes, I vividly recall the entire Nixon saga. Clinton was guilty of perjury and should have been convicted. Who doubts that his actions didn't affect the 2000 election?

Disagreed with your math since, first this isn't the Nixon era and, second, it isn't the Clinton era either. People have learned as a whole and, IMO, have tired of all this corruption crap. Not saying Trump will be convicted or even that he will lose the election. What I am saying is that the Republican Party, the party I once belonged to for over 35 years, is destroying itself by tying it's fate to a corrupt, lying, draft-dodging POS like Donald J. Trump.

 

[Divine_Wind]

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" applies only to criminal trials.

To "We, the People of the United States", not to a jury in a court of law. Sorry I didn't make that clearer for everyone.

 

[Airyaman]

Because it's an open public process, as it should be when overturning the People's vote. No?

The people vote in secret.

 

[Mr Person]

In a normal courtroom, yes. But this is purely political.

Exactly. This whole thing is political. It is the biggest waste of time since the Clinton impeachment which at least they had him clearly committing perjury. Of course if being unfaithful perverts were not allowed in office we would be impeaching leaders non stop.

I'll never work out why anyone thinks it's some kind of clever move to deliberately miss a point. "This is purely political" does not mean what you want it to - that this is just some kind of political smear/attack. It is based on the president withholding congressionally approved funds, having his people make clear to Ukraine that they must investigate the Bidens to have so much as a meeting with him, repeating his demand for that favor with Zelensky.

A corrupt act designed to help him regain office. Use of state resources and state machinery to try to get a private advantage.e




In reference to impeachment "purely political" means the process of impeachment is purely political. The only guide was "high crimes and misdemeanors", but the framers did not define it, most likely because at the time everyone knew what it meant: a corrupt act in the attaining or exercise of office. They did not say "a crime from any criminal code such as congress might pass" (aka, U.S. Code). They did not list crimes of the time. They only used a phrase with a commonly understood meaning broader than "criminal offense".

In fact, because they were not the idiots, they knew that when they failed to provide any judicial review of any part of an impeachment proceeding, that this effectively meant there was no definition for what qualifies, meaning anything does. A president could be impeached, convicted, and removed for "having a stupid face." That could be the literal article of impeachment and nobody could do anything other than vote out the people who were for it next time around.

The process, result, and remedy are all political.



So whether we're talking about someone demanding an impartial jury, or someone trying to complain about "hearsay", or someone going on about "beyond a reasonable doubt", we are talking about someone who does not understand and perhaps does not WANT to understand what impeachment is.

 

[Mr Person]

To "We, the People of the United States", not to a jury in a court of law. Sorry I didn't make that clearer for everyone.

Ah..ok. I'd still keep arguing if you are saying it applies to anyone else in the voting public. But as for yourself, sure, use whatever standard you deem appropriate when you decide how to vote the next time around (if what is done during impeachment will determine that).

 

[rickc]

Politicians go with the votes. The deplorables hold so much power over those republican senators phoney baloney jobs they can't afford to do the right thing. Now should they see public sentiment swing away from trump they would throw him under the bus in a heartbeat.

 

[SLC]

Aren’t jurors supposed to be impartial and not actively picking one side over the other?

This is a political trial not a legal trial so its what ever the majority party in the Senate wants. Elections have consequences.

 

[SLC]

A week or so ago at a Democrat fund raiser in California Schiff was giving a speech on how the Democrats were going to impeach Trump. So talk to me again about impartiality. :roll:

 

[Casper]

What is wrong with the headline?

The White House along with Senate Republicans agreed on Thursday to hold a full Senate trial if the House votes to impeach President Trump, Politico reports.


White House agrees to full Senate trial if House impeaches Trump - Axios

The jury and the defendant say the trial is okey-dokey.......

It is not up to them whether or not they hold a trial.

 

[Chomsky]

The people vote in secret.

Yes Airyaman, the people vote in secret. But their representatives act in the open public.

 

[Airyaman]

Yes Airyaman, the people vote in secret. But their representatives act in the open public.

Tis true, and really should be open. But if we want to bring people's votes into it...

 

[vesper]

Well, technically. Truth is, there's only maybe 5 or 6 states that have GOP senators that may be Purple or light Red. The rest are solid deep (enough) Red.

If those half-dozen Senators take heat, I'm sure McConnell will let them go their own way.

Where it will get interesting, is if the tide were to turn enough that McConnell believes he could lose the Senate. Will he give-up the Senate for Trump? That is the million dollar question! My suspicion is if it comes down to losing the Senate, Trump is too injured to weather the election and McConnell will let his Senators vote freely.

I think that is wishful thinking on your part Chomsky.

If it comes to a vote to impeach and right now I think that is a big IF. But if it happens and they have enough votes to pass it, it will go to the Senate for a hearing.

Are you aware Lindsey Graham has already sent a letter to the DOJ/FBI and other departments for all information on Joe Biden/Hunter Biden, Kerry's stepson Heinz and Archer, in regard to Burisma and any other information in regard to Ukrainians involved in interference in our 2016 election. The Senate Republicans are preparing for a trial. All those that Shifty would not allow the Republicans to call, will be called in the hearing in the Senate and then some. And in the Senate President Trump will have counsel able to cross exam all witnesses.

This of course will come after the release of the Horowitz report where tonight breaking news that it is leaking that there are those who face indictments. Will it not be John Roberts, Chief Justice that will oversee the trial in the Senate. John Roberts is also the one who oversees the FISC. If Horowitz has determined that the FISC court was deceived by actions of Obama's DOJ and FBI, how do you think he is going to be feeling once that information is revealed where countless Americans were spied on under false pretenses.

Where I am sitting Democrats are facing their worst nightmare. If the House decides to impeach, you can bet your sweet bippy the Senate is going to hold a trial.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Ah..ok. I'd still keep arguing if you are saying it applies to anyone else in the voting public. But as for yourself, sure, use whatever standard you deem appropriate when you decide how to vote the next time around (if what is done during impeachment will determine that).

You are free to do so.

 

[Chomsky]

Tis true, and really should be open. But if we want to bring people's votes into it...

Nah!





.

 

[Fletch]

I think most intelligent, educated and sensible Americans understand it doesn't take 25 Senators to flip the Senate. It only takes a handful. The current spread:

And any 'intelligent, educated and sensible American' who actually read my post would know that I wasnt discussing how many it took to flip the senate. Maybe you ought to reread my post with a tad less arrogance and see if you can figure out what was being discussed.

 

[Mr Person]

This is a political trial not a legal trial so its what ever the majority party in the Senate wants. Elections have consequences.

It is quite literally provided for in the constitution. It is legitimate, it's just not like other trials.


PS:

Trial in a criminal case is different from trial in a civil case is different from 'trial' in an administrative Court. An illegitimate impeachment would be the house refusing to impeach, but the senate then purporting to take up the case as if the articles of impeachment went through, try it, convict, and order removed the president. That would be illegitimate because it would be contrary to the existing rules.

The only reason some of you are going on is that it's a GOPer being investigated. You know there are very few rules surrounding impeachment, so of course you lot are starting to go on about "hearsay!" and all sorts of other **** that doesn't apply.

 

[Fletch]

That’s BS; vote for acquittal, if that’s what they are going to do, just stfu about it beforehand. I know this is a political process, but people keep comparing it to a judicial proceeding. At least pretend that it is impartial.

Why? In what way do benefit from that sort of pretense?