Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
The Impeachment Trial
Collapse
X
-
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 EnglishSome 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 PostSome 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 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 PostSome 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
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 PostNot 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Watermelon View PostDoesn’t the house decide whether an ‘improper’ act is impeachable?
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 PostSure - 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostSure - 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.
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 PostI 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?
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 PostNo the House doesn"t,
they know just as you do that the Senate has sole power over the trial.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Watermelon View PostJust 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’?
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 PostThe 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostWhoops... 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/
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
by Sparko
Today, 08:33 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
42 responses
249 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:53 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
108 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
194 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
73 responses
337 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 03:51 AM |
Comment