Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Impeachment Trial

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    By all accounts, today's hearing is another bust for Democrats.
    I'm shocked.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Some of the highlights:

      -Schiff (jokingly?) threatened senators with arrest if they left during the hearing
      -Nadler claims that Trump is doing Russia's bidding
      -Schiff continues to "misrepresent" testimony and documents, selectively quoting parts that appear to support his position while leaving out the parts that refute it (it's worse than a TheologyWeb debate! )
      -Schiff enters the handwritten Parnas note into evidence despite the fact that it can't be proven who wrote it, or when, or for what purpose -- or why a man who's native language is Ukrainian would write notes to himself in English
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Forgot to mention Nadler appealing to the standard of maladministration as a reason for impeachment, apparently unaware that it had been explicitly rejected by our Founding Fathers.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Some of the highlights:

          -Schiff (jokingly?) threatened senators with arrest if they left during the hearing
          -Nadler claims that Trump is doing Russia's bidding
          -Schiff continues to "misrepresent" testimony and documents, selectively quoting parts that appear to support his position while leaving out the parts that refute it (it's worse than a TheologyWeb debate! )
          -Schiff enters the handwritten Parnas note into evidence despite the fact that it can't be proven who wrote it, or when, or for what purpose -- or why a man who's native language is Ukrainian would write notes to himself in English
          Schiff, Nadler impeachment tension spills out during trial

          Schiff seems absolutely CONSUMED and obsessed with this "trial", reminiscent of Captain Queeg, of The Caine Mutiny infamy, apparently to the chagrin of his co-conspirator, Jerry Nadler.

          The first question at Wednesday’s news conference with House impeachment managers was directed at Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the New York Democrat whose Senate presentation helped prompt a rebuke from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and a flood of criticism from Republican senators.

          Nadler appeared to take a half step toward the podium as Rep. Adam B. Schiff cut off the CNN reporter. “I’m going to respond to the questions,” the California Democrat and lead impeachment manager said, then turned to call on another reporter for a question on a different topic. Nadler was silent.

          The exchange was one of a few moments that hint at some internal discord among House managers about the best way to present their case for impeaching President Donald Trump to the Senate as well as the American people — and how to stay on that message.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Some of the highlights:

            -Schiff enters the handwritten Parnas note into evidence despite the fact that it can't be proven who wrote it, or when, or for what purpose -- or why a man who's native language is Ukrainian would write notes to himself in English
            He moved here at a young age and went to school here. Did you hear him speaking during the interviews? He's clearly comfortable with English. Even if he speaks Ukrainian he might not be as comfortable writing in it as English.

            And if you think a handwriting analysis would prove those documents to be fake there's a good way to get the chance to demonstrate so.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Not everything "improper" rises to the level of an impeachable offense.
              Even if there are TONS of evidence that somebody committed the "improper" act, doesn't make it more impeachable.

              Sometimes, "improper" conduct deserves a scolding, or a censure, or perhaps the loss of a subsequent election.
              Doesn’t the house decide whether an ‘improper’ act is impeachable?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                Doesn’t the house decide whether an ‘improper’ act is impeachable?
                Sure - they have sole authority over that process. The Senate has sole authority to say, "uh, slow your roll - you may think that's impeachable, but we don't think it's cause for removal".

                The House, however, tends to think they have power, somehow, to control what the Senate does.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Sure - they have sole authority over that process. The Senate has sole authority to say, "uh, slow your roll - you may think that's impeachable, but we don't think it's cause for removal".

                  The House, however, tends to think they have power, somehow, to control what the Senate does.
                  No the House doesn"t, they know just as you do that the Senate has sole power over the trial. That doesn't mean that the minority party in the Senate can't negotiate or pressure the majority into having a fair trial with relevant evidence. If they as a majority insist on violating their oath to be an impartial jury, that's on them, they can do that, but, in this very important case, probably not without electoral consequences for some of their members, and long term consequences for the party as a whole.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Sure - they have sole authority over that process. The Senate has sole authority to say, "uh, slow your roll - you may think that's impeachable, but we don't think it's cause for removal".

                    The House, however, tends to think they have power, somehow, to control what the Senate does.
                    I agree that the house decides whether something is impeachable and the senate decides whether that’s removable.
                    If the senate doesn’t remove then what trump did is still impeachable but not removable.

                    However, the house has concluded that trump attempted to gain an advantage on the 2020 election by withholding aid. Claiming that action is not removable is ridiculous so the senate is denying the House conclusion.

                    Is there an argument that the house, while still not having a say in whether an action is removable or not, should have some say if their conclusion is being challenged?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                      I agree that the house decides whether something is impeachable and the senate decides whether that’s removable.
                      If the senate doesn’t remove then what trump did is still impeachable but not removable.

                      However, the house has concluded that trump attempted to gain an advantage on the 2020 election by withholding aid. Claiming that action is not removable is ridiculous so the senate is denying the House conclusion.

                      Is there an argument that the house, while still not having a say in whether an action is removable or not, should have some say if their conclusion is being challenged?
                      Just to clarify I’m saying that if the senate trial is about whether the house decision is cause for removal or not then I agree the house has no say.

                      However if the senate trial is about whether the house decision is questionable then shouldn’t the house have a right to say ‘ok we gave you our evidence but if you’re still not convinced then let us present more evidence’?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        No the House doesn"t,
                        Doesn't what?

                        they know just as you do that the Senate has sole power over the trial.
                        Then they should stop acting like they're still in charge.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                          Just to clarify I’m saying that if the senate trial is about whether the house decision is cause for removal or not then I agree the house has no say.
                          The House Managers are guests in the Senate. Their part was complete, as to how the impeachment process was run. Now it's up to the Senate where to go from there.

                          However if the senate trial is about whether the house decision is questionable then shouldn’t the house have a right to say ‘ok we gave you our evidence but if you’re still not convinced then let us present more evidence’?
                          That amounts to the House getting a "do-over". It should be expected that they do their due-diligence and present their best case, especially since they have been crowing about how "overwhelming" it is.

                          What the House can do is start another investigation, and present NEW Articles of Impeachment. Nothing prohibits them from doing that.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Whoops... Democrats may have stepped in it. As part of the arguments today, House manager Sylvia Garcia introduced into evidence the actions of both Joe and Hunter, saying that neither of them did anything wrong, and therefore any request by President Trump to have them investigated was illegitimate. This means that the Biden's are now fair game if the defense wants to call them as witnesses to counter the prosecution's claims.

                            https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020...-senate-trial/
                            Last edited by Mountain Man; 01-23-2020, 07:52 PM.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              The House Managers are guests in the Senate. Their part was complete, as to how the impeachment process was run. Now it's up to the Senate where to go from there.



                              That amounts to the House getting a "do-over". It should be expected that they do their due-diligence and present their best case, especially since they have been crowing about how "overwhelming" it is.

                              What the House can do is start another investigation, and present NEW Articles of Impeachment. Nothing prohibits them from doing that.
                              I’m sure they will. The evidence is overwhelming for the majority of the house, the legal community and roughly half the population. However it’s also no secret that more evidence is available that may or may not convince others. The only thing preventing the senate from hearing more evidence seems to be vindictiveness despite the polls showing 70% of the population wanting to hear it.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                Whoops... Democrats may have stepped in it. As part of the arguments today, House manager Sylvia Garcia introduced into evidence the actions of both Joe and Hunter, saying that neither of them did anything wrong, and therefore any request by President Trump to have them investigated was illegitimate. This means that the Biden's are now fair game if the defense wants to call them as witnesses to counter the prosecution's claims.

                                https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020...-senate-trial/
                                I think the vast majority of people don’t care if they are called to testify despite their relevance to proceedings being questionable at best. The counter to that claim would be a national security advisor stating the justification for investigating the Bidens were warranted not trying to get a confession out of Hunter or Joe.

                                However, the democrats views seem to be that if the Bidens had been corrupt then they should face the consequences.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                65 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                249 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                337 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X