• 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!

Why actually prosecute this case before the wrong jury, when a better one is outside Washington

btthegreat

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2018
Messages
7,028
Reaction score
4,697
Location
Lebanon Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Must the House provide an affirmative prosecution of the case after having passed the impeachment indictments and after having physically provided the articles to the senate and selecting the Managers? Once the President is impeached and the articles sent to the Senate, can they effectively walk away from the matter without even notifying the senate in advance of Nolle prosequi by just not showing up to prosecute? Let the Senate figure out whether and how to run its faux trial without prosecutors in attendance. The senate can debate and pontificate all it wants. But can the Senate formally acquit Trump of impeachment artical without an adversarial trail which cannot happen without those House managers in attendance to argue the case?

Then the House has put the case in the public record, without actually taking the decision out of the voters hands. Its members are actually taking the case away from this poisoned well of overtly biased jurors to a broader jury pool with all the testimony, all the evidence that they gathered unmuddied by the charade of sycophancy awarded the President's legal team. . An added benefit is that that Senators Sanders, Warren etc are not stalled from the campaign trail by this pathetic excuse of a trial.
 
Must the House provide an affirmative prosecution of the case after having passed the impeachment indictments and after having physically provided the articles to the senate and selecting the Managers? Once the President is impeached and the articles sent to the Senate, can they effectively walk away from the matter without even notifying the senate in advance of Nolle prosequi by just not showing up to prosecute? Let the Senate figure out whether and how to run its faux trial without prosecutors in attendance. The senate can debate and pontificate all it wants. But can the Senate formally acquit Trump of impeachment artical without an adversarial trail which cannot happen without those House managers in attendance to argue the case?

Then the House has put the case in the public record, without actually taking the decision out of the voters hands. Its members are actually taking the case away from this poisoned well of overtly biased jurors to a broader jury pool with all the testimony, all the evidence that they gathered unmuddied by the charade of sycophancy awarded the President's legal team. . An added benefit is that that Senators Sanders, Warren etc are not stalled from the campaign trail by this pathetic excuse of a trial.

That actually is what happens. The Senate calls Schiff’s witnesses and cross examines them. I doubt Schiff will give up the transcriptions since he will call them privileged, and will protect witnesses from perjury if the testimony doesn’t match.

I think Schiff’s plan is a house of cards.

BUT, it is a road map for republicans if they take the house to use on democrats, particularly judges.
 
Must the House provide an affirmative prosecution of the case after having passed the impeachment indictments and after having physically provided the articles to the senate and selecting the Managers? Once the President is impeached and the articles sent to the Senate, can they effectively walk away from the matter without even notifying the senate in advance of Nolle prosequi by just not showing up to prosecute? Let the Senate figure out whether and how to run its faux trial without prosecutors in attendance. The senate can debate and pontificate all it wants. But can the Senate formally acquit Trump of impeachment artical without an adversarial trail which cannot happen without those House managers in attendance to argue the case?

Then the House has put the case in the public record, without actually taking the decision out of the voters hands. Its members are actually taking the case away from this poisoned well of overtly biased jurors to a broader jury pool with all the testimony, all the evidence that they gathered unmuddied by the charade of sycophancy awarded the President's legal team. . An added benefit is that that Senators Sanders, Warren etc are not stalled from the campaign trail by this pathetic excuse of a trial.

Once the Articles for Impeachment are voted on and passed by the House and sent to the Senate it is out of their hands. Once the Senate receives the Articles for Impeachment they MUST hold a trial as per the Constitution and vote for either to remove the president or not to remove the president. If they vote not to remove the President then he keeps his job as President.

Of course, the House could impeach him all over again should they find other Constitutional abuses or criminal activity that the President engaged in. Perhaps that's why Pelosi wanted the inquiry to narrowly focus on just the Ukraine scandal.
 
Last edited:
Must the House provide an affirmative prosecution of the case after having passed the impeachment indictments and after having physically provided the articles to the senate and selecting the Managers? Once the President is impeached and the articles sent to the Senate, can they effectively walk away from the matter without even notifying the senate in advance of Nolle prosequi by just not showing up to prosecute? Let the Senate figure out whether and how to run its faux trial without prosecutors in attendance. The senate can debate and pontificate all it wants. But can the Senate formally acquit Trump of impeachment artical without an adversarial trail which cannot happen without those House managers in attendance to argue the case?

Then the House has put the case in the public record, without actually taking the decision out of the voters hands. Its members are actually taking the case away from this poisoned well of overtly biased jurors to a broader jury pool with all the testimony, all the evidence that they gathered unmuddied by the charade of sycophancy awarded the President's legal team. . An added benefit is that that Senators Sanders, Warren etc are not stalled from the campaign trail by this pathetic excuse of a trial.

:lamo The Senate could do whatever they wanted to. It would be irrelevant if the Democrats boycotted the trial.

What happens if no prosecutor shows up for a trial? Case is dismissed with prejudice against being refiled.

Nice try at finding your own view of what corruption the Democrats in the House should try next.
 
That actually is what happens. The Senate calls Schiff’s witnesses and cross examines them. I doubt Schiff will give up the transcriptions since he will call them privileged, and will protect witnesses from perjury if the testimony doesn’t match. I think Schiff’s plan is a house of cards.

BUT, it is a road map for republicans if they take the house to use on democrats, particularly judges.
I think the only transcripts he might
have refused to provide from the closed session would involve the whistleblower to protect his identity but he did not testify so there is no transcript.
 
:lamo The Senate could do whatever they wanted to. It would be irrelevant if the Democrats boycotted the trial.

What happens if no prosecutor shows up for a trial? Case is dismissed with prejudice against being refiled.

Nice try at finding your own view of what corruption the Democrats in the House should try next.

Constitutionally, the Senate cannot do whatever it wants. It must hold a trial and vote on all articles of impeachment brought before it.
 
Once the Articles for Impeachment are voted on and passed by the House and sent to the Senate it is out of their hands. Once the Senate receives the Articles for Impeachment they MUST hold a trial as per the Constitution and vote for either to remove the president or not to remove the president. If they vote not to remove the President then he keeps his job as President.

Of course, the House could impeach him all over again should they find other Constitutional abuses or criminal activity that the President engaged in. Perhaps that's why Pelosi wanted the inquiry to narrowly focus on just the Ukraine scandal.
A trial presupposes two adversarial parties and the Senate rules dictate who they are. One is not in attendance. Now what?
 
Constitutionally, the Senate cannot do whatever it wants. It must hold a trial and vote on all articles of impeachment brought before it.

There's a suggestion that the Senate could pass a vote to dismiss all charges/articles without holding a formal trial. IDK if that's actually the case.
 
There's a suggestion that the Senate could pass a vote to dismiss all charges/articles without holding a formal trial. IDK if that's actually the case.

I don't think that's possible from my understanding of the impeachment process. This would be tantamount to refusing to consider articles of impeachment. If they don't want to remove the president, they can vote so.
 
I don't think that's possible from my understanding of the impeachment process. This would be tantamount to refusing to consider articles of impeachment. If they don't want to remove the president, they can vote so.

Well it's more tanamount to a judge dismissing the case without hearing it.

I read that a simple majority was enough to dismiss the case, if that's true then the first challenge the Democrats face (assuming the House can vote to impeach without any trouble) is to get FOUR GOP senators to vote to hear the case.
 
A trial presupposes two adversarial parties and the Senate rules dictate who they are. One is not in attendance. Now what?

How the Senate "tries" the President is non-justiciable. It is entirely up to them.

They could vote to acquit a moment after the Articles of Impeachment are read for the first time, and there's nothing that could be done about it.
 
I don't think that's possible from my understanding of the impeachment process. This would be tantamount to refusing to consider articles of impeachment. If they don't want to remove the president, they can vote so.

Well, yes. That's what voting to dismiss the charges would mean - they are voting to not remove the President.
 
How the Senate "tries" the President is non-justiciable. It is entirely up to them.

They could vote to acquit a moment after the Articles of Impeachment are read for the first time, and there's nothing that could be done about it.
My argument is that is pretty much their only option absent prosecuting council and its a pretty hollow victory, if you think about it. The House shows complete contempt for this Senate and its capacity to be fair jurors and then the Senate proves how right it is by taking the action to vote to acquit, rather than doing nothing but 'receive' the articles and dismiss the case with or without prejudice.
 
Last edited:
My argument is that is pretty much their only option absent prosecuting council and its a pretty hollow victory, if you think about it.
If the House managers didn't show up, that would hand the Senate Republicans a technicality that would allow them to just dismiss the charges for failure to prosecute.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
If the House managers didn't show up, that would hand the Senate Republicans a technicality that would allow them to just dismiss the charges for failure to prosecute.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
why does the House care if it determines that the Senate trial is nothing more than a charade and a fakery designed to undercut the House Managers and their case at every opportunity? The purpose of this impeachment process is not to impress a Senate ruled by Mitch McConnell but to impress the American public. Once their hearings are over, and the House debate and votes are cast, why give the Senatitors and Trump's attorneys the target they seek, if that technicality induces the dismissal means that the lasting memories implanted in the public will be House memories. Maybe its smarter to control the narrative while this is a story, and then clip the story of its wings, when Dems no longer control the narrative.
 
Last edited:
why does the House care if it determines that the Senate trial is nothing more than a charade and a fakery designed to undercut the House Managers and their case at every opportunity? The purpose of this impeachment process is not to impress a Senate ruled by Mitch McConnell but to impress the American public. Once their hearings are over, and the House debate and votes are cast, who give the Senate the target they seek? That technicality induces the dismissal means that the lasting memories implanted in the public will be House memories.
Personally, I don't think the House will vote on articles of impeachment. I think they'll spend the next 12 months holding hearings after hearings, unless something comes out that'll truly shift public opinion dramatically.
 
Personally, I don't think the House will vote on articles of impeachment. I think they'll spend the next 12 months holding hearings after hearings, unless something comes out that'll truly shift public opinion dramatically.
That too is possible, but I doubt it. I think Pelosi will push forward, this now while she has the votes rather than stall it and risk losing too many. In either case, the House does its duty by providing a public record of these charges and the testimony and the evidence while it is fresh and hopefully winning some important caselaw victories that add to the precedent on supremacy of Congressional subpoena powers. Historians and legal scholars gain if nobody else does.
 
That too is possible, but I doubt it. I think Pelosi will push forward, this now while she has the votes rather than stall it and risk losing too many. In either case, the House does its duty by providing a public record of these charges and the testimony and the evidence while it is fresh and hopefully winning some important caselaw victories that add to the precedent on supremacy of Congressional subpoena powers.
She's unlikely to lose any votes, the more hearings that occur. If anything, she'll gain votes.

The question is whether she'll get enough votes in the Senate, which is unlikely.

And Pelosi, as a rule, doesn't allow for votes that she doesn't know the result of. She's really good at this.
 
Personally, I don't think the House will vote on articles of impeachment. I think they'll spend the next 12 months holding hearings after hearings, unless something comes out that'll truly shift public opinion dramatically.

Don't be a fool, the Democrat controlled House has come this far.

Trump will be impeached. The signs are the Senate will hold a trial...the trial will either be over quickly and the GOP majority will rubber stamp an acquittal (most likely) or it will be a longer trial with GOP senators gathering enough courage to convict and hoping that the senate trial will also persuade the public too.

Yesterday's vote in the Kentucky Governor's race was a bad day for Trump...it seems every day is a bad day.
 
Don't be a fool, the Democrat controlled House has come this far.

Trump will be impeached. The signs are the Senate will hold a trial...the trial will either be over quickly and the GOP majority will rubber stamp an acquittal (most likely) or it will be a longer trial with GOP senators gathering enough courage to convict and hoping that the senate trial will also persuade the public too.

Yesterday's vote in the Kentucky Governor's race was a bad day for Trump...it seems every day is a bad day.

I would argue that it's in the House's best interests to keep the hearings going as long as possible. As you say, unless some really damning information comes out, it's unlikely that the Senate will convict - and a failed impeachment is a political loss that Pelosi will avoid as much as possible. The longer the hearings go, the more likely something damning will come out, the longer they can keep this in the headlines, the more it damages Trump next year.

On the other hand, if the House sends Articles of Impeachment to the Senate early next year and the Senate rejects them, Trump has months to re-energize his base and the means to do it.
 
I would argue that it's in the House's best interests to keep the hearings going as long as possible. As you say, unless some really damning information comes out, it's unlikely that the Senate will convict - and a failed impeachment is a political loss that Pelosi will avoid as much as possible. The longer the hearings go, the more likely something damning will come out, the longer they can keep this in the headlines, the more it damages Trump next year.

On the other hand, if the House sends Articles of Impeachment to the Senate early next year and the Senate rejects them, Trump has months to re-energize his base and the means to do it.

No, not as long as possible they have the public's attention span to deal with...so not over in a flash but publicly dramatic and over in about two months max. The Senate trial will take 4-6 weeks with both sides having an eye on next year's election.
On a side note no senator can do any campaigning while the trial is on, they have to be in attendance in the Senate which could persuade Democrats to elongate the trial.

Not everything that comes to light will be exposed by the hearings but by the Senate trial...as pressure builds, witnesses can no longer refuse to appear and the first Republican the falter may see a flood follow him.

Is Trump like the little boy with his hand in the dyke hole?


The expectation is that GOP senators will meekly acquit Trump anyway, so Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will be prepared for that.
 
Back
Top Bottom