• 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!

White House agrees to full Senate trial if House impeaches Trump

Rexedgar

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
74,817
Reaction score
69,731
Location
RMN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Unitedwestand13 said:
Aren’t jurors supposed to be impartial and not actively picking one side over the other?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rexedgar said:
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.......
Click to expand...

If they agreed to the opposite you would criticize that as well. I dont see the problem here. If dems want a trial in the senate, they are going to get one. You should be happy.
 
Mach said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why not make the process less political and make it a secret ballot?
 
Alright, let's be serious here. It's not a real trial, and we all know - or should know - it. It's political proceedings; just like in the House.
 
Mach said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it is such a poor design. The process itself is politic only. No court gets to define high crimes and misdemeanors, but no court gets to seat an impartial jury (similarly, no court defines what is admissible as 'evidence'). To me it makes perfect sense that the only remedy for something like a biased jury defending/acquitting based solely on their bias is political: voting them out.
 
Fletch said:
If they agreed to the opposite you would criticize that as well. I dont see the problem here. If dems want a trial in the senate, they are going to get one. You should be happy.
Click to expand...

The White House occupant is the ”defendant” in the “trial” phase of the impeachment process. It’s good to know that it’s ok with Trump that the constitutional process proceeds.

To the bolded, of course you don’t.....
 
Rexedgar said:
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.......
Click to expand...

Sarcasm aside for a moment, we do need to be honest about what is really happening.

Assuming the House crafts Articles of Impeachment and has a full floor but party line vote to hand those articles over to the Senate, we know a few things are likely to happen. No matter what happens with the "trial" phase (for lack of a better way to put it) odds are we will get a party line vote in the Senate and the 2/3rd vote standard to remove from office is not achieved. There was never a chance Senate Republicans would cross over and vote to remove from office, as it would mean conceding how they have supported him to date and probably derail several House Republicans.

Trump and Republicans in the Senate can concede all the activities of the House and about all that does it make this a 2020 issue.

We can talk all day long about who should be doing what but the partisan lines have been drawn in the sand... scratch that, drawn in concrete... all that matters now is 2020. Trump may be Impeached but he will still be in office.

Solid Trump/Republicans and also solid <insert whoever wins the nod here>/Democratic voters are not moving.

It will end up being Independents that determine what happens in 2020.

That is it.
 
Mr Person said:
I'm not sure it is such a poor design. The process itself is politic only. No court gets to define high crimes and misdemeanors, but no court gets to seat an impartial jury (similarly, no court defines what is admissible as 'evidence'). To me it makes perfect sense that the only remedy for something like a biased jury defending/acquitting based solely on their bias is political: voting them out.
Click to expand...
It's political because it's purely a process of the People.
 
Fletch said:
If they agreed to the opposite you would criticize that as well. I dont see the problem here. If dems want a trial in the senate, they are going to get one. You should be happy.
Click to expand...

The Democrats will accuse the GOP of sabotaging their primaries and tying the candidates and incumbents to DC. Wait for it.
 
Chomsky said:
Alright, let's be serious here. It's not a real trial, and we all know - or should know - it. It's political proceedings; just like in the House.
Click to expand...

Political or judicial, it sets the wrong tone to have those that sit in judgement pre-judge, (publicly,) the verdict before all the “evidence” is presented to them.....
 
OrphanSlug said:
Sarcasm aside for a moment, we do need to be honest about what is really happening.

Assuming the House crafts Articles of Impeachment and has a full floor but party line vote to hand those articles over to the Senate, we know a few things are likely to happen. No matter what happens with the "trial" phase (for lack of a better way to put it) odds are we will get a party line vote in the Senate and the 2/3rd vote standard to remove from office is not achieved. There was never a chance Senate Republicans would cross over and vote to remove from office, as it would mean conceding how they have supported him to date and probably derail several House Republicans.

Trump and Republicans in the Senate can concede all the activities of the House and about all that does it make this a 2020 issue.

We can talk all day long about who should be doing what but the partisan lines have been drawn in the sand... scratch that, drawn in concrete... all that matters now is 2020. Trump may be Impeached but he will still be in office.

Solid Trump/Republicans and also solid <insert whoever wins the nod here>/Democratic voters are not moving.

It will end up being Independents that determine what happens in 2020.

That is it.
Click to expand...
"Proceedings" works well, you know! ;)
 
Rexedgar said:
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.......
Click to expand...

I noticed one of the republican congressmen today say something to the effect that the dems were trying to impeach 'our' president. Not the president, our president.

If the gop part of the senate let's him slide, you can be assured more than a few will lose their seats. They have twenty something to defend this election.
 
Fletch said:
If they agreed to the opposite you would criticize that as well. I dont see the problem here. If dems want a trial in the senate, they are going to get one. You should be happy.
Click to expand...

I'm all for it. I wonder how many gop senators will lose their seats next election trying to defend trump?
 
Rexedgar said:
Political or judicial, it sets the wrong tone to have those that sit in judgement pre-judge, (publicly,) the verdict before all the “evidence” is presented to them.....
Click to expand...

I suspect the medicine would be worse than the disease. If we really want one court rule to apply, we should want them all to if we're going to be consistent. And if we do that, I'd rather leave impeachment as it is but do one of the following two things:

1. Constitutional amendment making explicit that a sitting president can be indicted and tried while sitting; or

2. Statute that tolls (aka pauses) the statute of limitations for any crime the president committed either before or during the presidency, such that a president cannot simply wait out the clock on crimes he committed before office.

I'd prefer 2, because 1 could be abused and if if not abused, it's be a hell of an issue if the president could be hauled off to jail/etc.
 
Rexedgar said:
Political or judicial, it sets the wrong tone to have those that sit in judgement pre-judge, (publicly,) the verdict before all the “evidence” is presented to them.....
Click to expand...

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.
 
Chomsky said:
Alright, let's be serious here. It's not a real trial, and we all know - or should know - it. It's political proceedings; just like in the House.
Click to expand...

...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.
 
Last edited:
bongsaway said:
I'm all for it. I wonder how many gop senators will lose their seats next election trying to defend trump?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom