White House agrees to full Senate trial if House impeaches Trump

[Atomic Kid]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think that a very tight analogy.

He also had serious allegations and members of his staff testifying against him
The founders worried extensively over partisanship and took steps to curtain mob actions; they fully understood that groups with similar interests and thinking would aggregate over time.
I wouldn't expect the Constitution to address political parties and I think the founders understood over time parties WOULD form.

A delegation of Republican Senators approached Nixon and advised him that it would be in the best interests of the nation and the party for him to resign, as impeachment was imminent, and they could and would not provide him with any guarantee that the Senate would protect or spare him. I wouldn't entirely rule out that this could happen here. But I have not much faith that our present day Republican Senators have that same kind of political or moral conscience as it appears that they have decidedly wrapped the entire identity of their party around the persona of a single person.

The Founding fathers entirely omitted political parties from the Constitution. This was no accident. They desperately wanted to avoid the divisions that had ripped England apart in the bloody civil wars of the 17th century. They saw parties, or 'factions' as they called them, as corrupt relics of the monarchical British system that they wanted to discard in favor of a truly democratic government. So it wasn't that they didn't think of parties. It just that it brought back bitter memories.

 

[wellwisher]

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.......

The bottom line is the Democrat party committed crimes before and after the 2016 election. Among other things they spied on Trump Tower in a way worse than Watergate. You cannot get a FISA warrant to spy on a presidential candidate without the President Obama being informed by his intel people. When Trump won and made the promise to drain the swamp, this put the Democrats into a cover up frenzy as they left power. The only hope for the Democrats to stay out of jail, is get rid of Trump by any means; hook or crook, so they can regain the Presidency and make this go away.

If there is a full Senate trial after the Democrats vote for impeachment, then it will be Trump's turn to be on the offense. A wide range of Democrats will have to appear as witnesses, which will not be good for them politically. Some may even lie under oath and will have to serve some time in jail. Trump is made a line in the sand, and now it is up the Democrats to blink or cross that line.

The Democrats impeachment circus was boring because it was all heresy gaming but no beef. The DOJ and Replications have hard data and evidence, which will make it very compelling.

 

[Bullseye]

A delegation of Republican Senators approached Nixon and advised him that it would be in the best interests of the nation and the party for him to resign, as impeachment was imminent, and they could and would not provide him with any guarantee that the Senate would protect or spare him. I wouldn't entirely rule out that this could happen here. But I have not much faith that our present day Republican Senators have that same kind of political or moral conscience as it appears that they have decidedly wrapped the entire identity of their party around the persona of a single person.

Again, Nixon was facing hard criminal counts; it's likely that enough of his own party would vote against him. So far nothing tangible has come forth against Trump; lots of "I think . . .", "I wouldn't have done it that way", lots of bureaucratic puffery and self-importance, lots of partisanship; but not a single criminal act.

The Founding fathers entirely omitted political parties from the Constitution. This was no accident. They desperately wanted to avoid the divisions that had ripped England apart in the bloody civil wars of the 17th century. They saw parties, or 'factions' as they called them, as corrupt relics of the monarchical British system that they wanted to discard in favor of a truly democratic government. So it wasn't that they didn't think of parties. It just that it brought back bitter memories.

That may be true, but they also realized that people of similar interests and beliefs would tend to congregate and work in unison. They went a long way to prevent any of those alliances from becoming overpowering - the 2/3's requirement for ousting a President for example.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

He was being bribed

No. A clear case of bribery is the money all these companies paid the Clintons to give speeches when Hillary was going to be the next president. Now that she is no longer in a position to possibly grant political favors nobody is paying to hear them speak.

 

[vegas giants]

No. A clear case of bribery is the money all these companies paid the Clintons to give speeches when Hillary was going to be the next president. Now that she is no longer in a position to possibly grant political favors nobody is paying to hear them speak.

Then indict her. Oh wait....you cant. Lol

 

[ClaraD]

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.

How about we let the citizens vote? Oh, that wouldn't work out in Trump's favor would it....especially since a majority wants him impeached and said what he did was wrong.

 

[Divine_Wind]

They are engaging in political retribution attacks.

A political retribution attack is something like Trump Tweeting a certain person is a liar and/or scumbag.

A House investigation can have underpinnings of such things but as we are seeing with the Impeachment Inquiry, the witnesses are testifying under oath and it’s up to the American voter to decide about the facts.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

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.

But that's then the thing, both groups are so entrenched in their sides that they've already made up their minds. I'd rather a person be upfront about it, show me who they really are, rather than continue a charade.

Sent from my SM-A305N using Tapatalk

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Then indict her. Oh wait....you cant. Lol

Not likely. If we start indicting our leaders that are being bribed by big business, special interest , the rich and powerful we would have no leaders.

 

[vegas giants]

Not likely. If we start indicting our leaders that are being bribed by big business, special interest , the rich and powerful we would have no leaders.

Well we will for trump

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Well we will for trump

They can't. The senate will close this matter. They will then start investigating Biden and the democrats. In the end nothing will get done which is exactly what the rich and powerful want unless they benefit from it. Nothing will get done that can possibly transfer the wealth from the rich and powerful who own our government to the people. Both parties will see to that since they own both parties. This is just a show to keep us divided so the rich and powerful can control us with their government.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

are you actually serious?

 

[TurtleDude]

How about we let the citizens vote? Oh, that wouldn't work out in Trump's favor would it....especially since a majority wants him impeached and said what he did was wrong.

if you are correct, then Trump will lose in a year. If you aren't and he wins, I guess you were wrong.