White House agrees to full Senate trial if House impeaches Trump

[Chomsky]

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.

I didn't write about wishing anything. I'm commenting on the range of the earlier poster's options, not claiming anything else. I've no idea how you got a prediction out of my post.

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.

I'd expect no less. It is a political process, with each chamber having sole power over their proceedings. What I'd like to see though, is Trump release the administration's 1st person witnesses he's been hiding.

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.

Yeah, I saw that. I suspect the timing was a strategic drop by Barr. We shall see.

If the House decides to impeach, you can bet your sweet bippy the Senate is going to hold a trial.

Alright, haven't heard that one in awhile! :2razz:

 

[Chomsky]

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

Obviously, your post is accurate and a good one to which I agree. Though I will say Nixon only went down to just below 30% at the very end.

However I do disagree with the bolded. I doubt Pelosi ever thought the Senate would remove. She may have hoped she had an outside shot, but never expected it to ring. No, I believe she had two goals:

1] Relieve the pressure within her party, consolidating and motivating her base

(It worked!)

2] To disseminate the facts of the matter to the public, in an attempt to sway opinion & build momentum in the public for next November

(worked somewhat moderately, but long term effects remain to be seen)

 

[Deuce]

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

Points of order:

1) Impeachment is not "overturning the people's vote"
2) The people chose Hillary Clinton.

 

[ocean515]

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

Has been since the moment the Majority in the House unilaterally started their coup attempt.

 

[Chomsky]

Points of order:

1) Impeachment is not "overturning the people's vote"
2) The people chose Hillary Clinton.

You're arguing technicalities here ... you're well aware what I meant in the context of the posts.

 

[Mr Person]

Has been since the moment the Majority in the House unilaterally started their coup attempt.

As I said to someone else who read it the way they wanted to because of partisanship:


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.

 

[ElChupacabra]

as a matter of best practice to get justice/truth, sure.
but our absurdly weak impeachment "trial" will be in modern times
- a stacked jury in favor of the defense
- a jury whose very jobs and reputations depend on on them voting for the defense, being the same political party.
- the defendant has pledged campaign assistance to those who support him
- the defendant has attacked and destroyed the political careers of those who have opposed him.

Yeah, totally fair. violates every idea we have about what a fair and impartial jury is. The issue is, it's rarely used, and so far the outcome hasn't been a big deal. Nixon resigned, and Clinton was about an affair BJ, a non-issue.

So basically its a system that should be tested in dozens of ways and improved like *every other important system humans use*. But because its so infrequently used, and so political...we're stuck with stupid.

Well, I'm sure the original intention is you'd have politicians who were interested in protecting the country and not an individual. Given recent comments by Graham, I think it's pretty clear this will be the kangaroo court the GOP was complaining about but in reverse. Politics has become a joke, and I think we're definitely in a downward spiral in regards to governance.

 

[ocean515]

As I said to someone else who read it the way they wanted to because of partisanship:


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.

Thanks for sharing a reality as you see it.

 

[Hamish Howl]

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.......

Now he's trying to say that he has some say in it.

It also means that McConnell has assured him that the goods will be delivered.

 

[Mr Person]

Thanks for sharing a reality as you see it.

Panicking and cannot answer ---> Say something stupidly bitchy while still evasive.




Congratulations, sir, you made a show of defiance without actually saying anything. Have yourself a Big Mac in Trump's honor.

 

[joko104]

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

You mean like grand juries are supposed to be impartial and not actively picking one side over the other - like DEMOCRAT Schiff - who declared he wants Trump impeached even before starting - declaring he and only he will decide who will and won't be witnesses - and what they can and can not testify about?

 

[joko104]

As I said to someone else who read it the way they wanted to because of partisanship:


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.

Short version of your message:

You hate rule of law and the rules courts use for evidence at crap and all should be eliminated. Rather, the only question of impeachment is singularly a partisan issue decided for personal and political goals in your opinion.

Either a person believes and supports rule of law and the centuries long traditions and formal rules of it - or not. I do. You don't.

I mean your message is a joke, claiming the authors of the Constitution did not know what the words "crimes" and "misdemeanors" means. :roll:

Your message is a concession that under all American application of rules of evidence and laws there is NO case against Trump. Therefore, you claim the authors of the constitution didn't have 6th grade educations and were a bunch of idiots - so therefore everything they wrote should be ignored because that is the only way to remove Trump - confident otherwise he'll be the president next term.

 

[Bullseye]

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.......

At one time I heard the GOP was thinking about not bringing it to the floor. I didn't know that was even an option.

 

[Mr Person]

You're arguing technicalities here ... you're well aware what I meant in the context of the posts.

I understand you, but I actually did wince a bit at the "overturning" phrase since it's a Trump defender's phrase used to attack the process of impeachment just like they've used it to attack anything someone says against Trump.

I'm a big believer in defeating someone on their own terms, but also while making clear that that is my intent. Otherwise, it seems to give undeserved credence to their use of the term, which affects the framing of the issue. (For similar reasons I cringe whenever someone who recognizes Mueller's investigation turned up bad terms nonetheless uses the term "collusion" in reference to the investigation. Trump and his supporters picked that term specifically because it is not a crime, opening the way for a silly intellectually dishonest argument that "collusion is not a crime." But the investigation was never into that. It was into criminal conspiracy, crimes related to obstruction, and basically anything that turned up in the course of investigating the main mandate since a special counsel has the full powers and duties of a U.S. Attorney)

 

[Mr Person]

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.

I mean your message is a joke, claiming the authors of the Constitution did not know what the words "crimes" and "misdemeanors" means.

Here's your dopamine hit: I said the polar opposite, as you can see above. Again:

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.

See the big bold blue letters? The ones in italic? I even added some helpful underlining.

:lol:



That's your one Mr. Person response for this year. You should have spent it better if you wanted to elicit a negative emotion from me. Make your response, which will not be read (unless you want me to read it on 1/1/20?), a good one.

 

[Chomsky]

I understand you, but I actually did wince a bit at the "overturning" phrase since it's a Trump defender's phrased used to attack the process of impeachment just like they've used it to attack anything someone says against Trump.

I'm a big believer in defeating someone on their own terms, but also while making clear that that is my intent. Otherwise, it seems to give undeserved credence to their use of the term, which affects the framing of the issue. (For similar reasons I cringe whenever someone who recognizes Mueller's investigation turned up bad terms nonetheless uses the term "collusion" in reference to the investigation. Trump and his supporters picked that term specifically because it is not a crime, opening the way for a silly intellectually dishonest argument that "collusion is not a crime." But the investigation was never into that. It was into criminal conspiracy, crimes related to obstruction, and basically anything that turned up in the course of investigating the main mandate since a special counsel has the full powers and duties of a U.S. Attorney)

So I must ask you, what term would you instead use?

The reason I used the term, imperfect as it is, was to denote respect for the wishes of my fellow Americans that duly elected our President. If we are going to remove their duly elected choice, we better damn well have a good reason and the country better damn well be on our side. Which is why our founders wisely required a super-majority to remove.

 

[Cardinal]

"White House agrees to full Senate trial if House impeaches Trump"

Since the trial will center almost exclusively around Biden, Burisma, Crowdstrike and the Steele Dossier, I have absolutely no doubt about this.

 

[Deuce]

You're arguing technicalities here ... you're well aware what I meant in the context of the posts.

Not really, no. "The people" don't get a vote here. Congress does.

 

[Cardinal]

So I must ask you, what term would you instead use?

The reason I used the term, imperfect as it is, was to denote respect for the wishes of my fellow Americans that duly elected our President. If we are going to remove their duly elected choice, we better damn well have a good reason and the country better damn well be on our side. Which is why our founders wisely required a super-majority to remove.

What is the point of attaching the word "duly" to "elected our President?"

 

[Deuce]

Short version of your message:

You hate rule of law and the rules courts use for evidence at crap and all should be eliminated. Rather, the only question of impeachment is singularly a partisan issue decided for personal and political goals in your opinion.

Either a person believes and supports rule of law and the centuries long traditions and formal rules of it - or not. I do. You don't.

I mean your message is a joke, claiming the authors of the Constitution did not know what the words "crimes" and "misdemeanors" means. :roll:

Your message is a concession that under all American application of rules of evidence and laws there is NO case against Trump. Therefore, you claim the authors of the constitution didn't have 6th grade educations and were a bunch of idiots - so therefore everything they wrote should be ignored because that is the only way to remove Trump - confident otherwise he'll be the president next term.

The founding fathers absolutely knew what the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant, and that phrase includes things that aren't actually violating any law.

There's plenty of evidence of Trump's wrongdoing. You're never going to see it because you don't want to, which is why none of us are interested in debating this idiocy you're spewing. You screech about the rule of law but have somehow convinced yourself impeachment is not a legal process.

 

[Deuce]

So I must ask you, what term would you instead use?

The reason I used the term, imperfect as it is, was to denote respect for the wishes of my fellow Americans that duly elected our President. If we are going to remove their duly elected choice, we better damn well have a good reason and the country better damn well be on our side. Which is why our founders wisely required a super-majority to remove.

All presidents are duly elected, therefore none should be impeached.

 

[Chomsky]

What is the point of attaching the word "duly" to "elected our President?"

It implies legitimacy. Trump is legally in office. He can't just be removed as illegitimate. He must be removed by legitimate method.

 

[Chomsky]

Not really, no. "The people" don't get a vote here. Congress does.

Reread the last several posts, then reconsider what you wrote here. "People" was referring to the election.

 

[Cardinal]

It implies legitimacy. Trump is legally in office. He can't just be removed as illegitimate. He must be removed by legitimate method.

It may be that by jumping in at the end of the thread I'm making a critical mistake that will ultimately make me look foolish, but has anybody been suggesting removing the President by an illegitimate method?

I'm also confused as to why it must be said that Trump is legally in office.

 

[trixare4kids]

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.

So glad to hear this!

I still think the w/b must testify. The senate Republicans must call him to testify! He can do this and still keep his anonymity.