Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

[JimL]

Not semantics - half the procedure is in limbo.

The Democrats - shooting off their own feet since 2016...

A prosecutor can have all the evidence of a crime on hand that he could want, but the subject is not indicted for that, he isn't indicted until the prosecutor decides to indict.

[Teallaura]

A prosecutor can have all the evidence of a crime on hand that he could want, but the subject is not indicted for that, he isn't indicted until the prosecutor decides to indict.

I grant impeachment is similar to an indictment, but they aren't the same thing. You got what you wanted - an impeachment. Now, why are you afraid to present your overwhelming hearsay at trial?

[Sam]

Translation: WAAAAaaaaaannnnhhhhhhhh, the Senate isn't buying the House's incredibly partisan impeachment sham!

The Senate is free to run its trial more or less how the majority deems fit. It's duty, however, is to adjudicate the President's guilt or innocence of the articles of impeachment to the best of its ability and render impartial judgment.

If the Senate does not attempt to call relevant witnesses that the Trump administration blocked from being deposed in the House, it is derelict in its duties. Especially as we keep finding pieces of evidence that implicate the President and those witnesses.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

The Senate is free to run its trial more or less how the majority deems fit.

Like the House did their part, yes.

It's duty, however, is to adjudicate the President's guilt or innocence of the articles of impeachment to the best of its ability and render impartial judgment.

Let's not be naive, Sam -- this is an entirely political process on an entirely partisan basis, and both sides are playing with keeping or gaining power.

If the Senate does not attempt to call relevant witnesses that the Trump administration blocked from being deposed in the House, it is derelict in its duties. Especially as we keep finding pieces of evidence that implicate the President and those witnesses.

--Sam

The only way the Senate will vote to convict and remove is if public opinion swings wildly in favor of conviction and removal. That could happen, but unless and until it does, I don't think you should hold your breath.

[Sam]

Like the House did their part, yes.



Let's not be naive, Sam -- this is an entirely political process on an entirely partisan basis, and both sides are playing with keeping or gaining power.



The only way the Senate will vote to convict and remove is if public opinion swings wildly in favor of conviction and removal. That could happen, but unless and until it does, I don't think you should hold your breath.

You continue to say that this is purely partisan, a game, etc. ... but only when it comes to Republicans' conduct. You've had plenty of complaints regarding the substance of House Democrats during impeachment proceedings.

It would seem pretty non-partisan to argue that Congress has both the duty and the right to question executive branch officials about whether their actions and orders were bent toward a corrupt or personal purpose, rather than the nation's interest when available evidence and testimony implicates them in wrongdoing.

So why not spend time arguing that Republicans in the Senate, unlike those dastardly House Democrats, should do the right thing?

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

You continue to say that this is purely partisan, a game, etc. ... but only when it comes to Republicans' conduct.

Sam, slow your roll... I said BOTH sides.

Let's not be naive, Sam -- this is an entirely political process on an entirely partisan basis, and both sides are playing with keeping or gaining power.

[Sam]

Sam, slow your roll... I said BOTH sides.

But, again, you've said this as a vague response to others' criticisms about Republicans' behavior while frequently posting harsh criticisms of Democrats' behavior even when the factual basis for those criticisms is lacking. You are not, in other words, taking a "both sides" approach in your actual presentation.

So why not criticize Republicans for refusing to call relevant witnesses that Trump has blocked from honoring valid subpoenas? Why not, indeed, reserve your harshest criticisms for Trump and the band of officials who appear, from evidence and testimony, to have acted with corrupt and clandestine intent?

--Sam

[rogue06]

The Senate is free to run its trial more or less how the majority deems fit. It's duty, however, is to adjudicate the President's guilt or innocence of the articles of impeachment to the best of its ability and render impartial judgment.

If the Senate does not attempt to call relevant witnesses that the Trump administration blocked from being deposed in the House, it is derelict in its duties. Especially as we keep finding pieces of evidence that implicate the President and those witnesses.

--Sam

Kind of moot at the moment since the left is derelict in their duties by refusing to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate or name their managers. And this after we were barraged with the claim that all of this needed to be done post haste since Trump is so bad that he must be removed from office ASAP.

Just another intentional lie on their part and a lame excuse for not bothering to try to enforce their subpoenas -- which brings up a question:

If the Senate is derelict in their duty if they don't subpoena witnesses then how derelict was the House for not bothering to go to court and having them enforced? In fact, when Kupperman asked the courts for direction they actually dropped his subpoena. So point of fact the Democrats really don't care a whit about the subpoenas.

[Teallaura]

The Senate tries the case - it DOESN'T prosecute or investigate it. In a normal court, a prosecutor pulling this stunt would have to show good cause to allow new witnesses and explain why they weren't previously disposed/presented to the grand jury.

Without one heck of a great reason, the prosecutor would be laughed out of court.

[MaxVel]

But, again, you've said this as a vague response to others' criticisms about Republicans' behavior while frequently posting harsh criticisms of Democrats' behavior even when the factual basis for those criticisms is lacking. You are not, in other words, taking a "both sides" approach in your actual presentation.

--Sam

And you are?

[Cow Poke]

But, again, you've said this as a vague response to others' criticisms about Republicans' behavior while frequently posting harsh criticisms of Democrats' behavior even when the factual basis for those criticisms is lacking. You are not, in other words, taking a "both sides" approach in your actual presentation.

So why not criticize Republicans for refusing to call relevant witnesses that Trump has blocked from honoring valid subpoenas? Why not, indeed, reserve your harshest criticisms for Trump and the band of officials who appear, from evidence and testimony, to have acted with corrupt and clandestine intent?

--Sam

Incredibly simple answer, Sam.

In this case, it's the Democrats who are on the warpath, and have initiated this sham impeachment.

[Cow Poke]

The Senate tries the case - it DOESN'T prosecute or investigate it. In a normal court, a prosecutor pulling this stunt would have to show good cause to allow new witnesses and explain why they weren't previously disposed/presented to the grand jury.

Without one heck of a great reason, the prosecutor would be laughed out of court.

Because presidential impeachment is such a unique (and rare) animal, it's hard to make exact comparisons to the criminal trial process.

But it's actually like the House has the "fact finding and case presenting" part of the trial, where they establish guilt, then the Senate has the "punishment phase" of the trial where they determine what to do with the findings.

In many criminal courts, these are two separate components, and the rules of evidence are different for the two phases.

The House has, in effect, pronounced Trump guilty, albeit on an incredibly partisan basis, and it's up to the Senate to decide what to do with that.

[Sam]

The Senate tries the case - it DOESN'T prosecute or investigate it. In a normal court, a prosecutor pulling this stunt would have to show good cause to allow new witnesses and explain why they weren't previously disposed/presented to the grand jury.

Without one heck of a great reason, the prosecutor would be laughed out of court.

"Your Honor, these witnesses were subpoenaed during the investigation but refused to appear before the grand jury."

"Oh, really?! Well, then. Get 'em in here."

"Thank you, Your Honor."

[Sam]

And you are?

Well, I'm not claiming that it's all some partisan game where both sides are on equal footing pursuing crass political ends.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

"Your Honor, these witnesses were subpoenaed during the investigation but refused to appear before the grand jury."

"Oh, really?! Well, then. Get 'em in here."

"Thank you, Your Honor."

Yeah, that should have happened during the House portion of the impeachment process.