Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

As opposed to the uncalculated error on the part of Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi, who declared publicly that they are “objective jurists”

Did they now? When did they do that? Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi are not jurors in any way. They belong to the House, not the Senate. The House investigates and then indicts with articles of impeachment, it is the role of the Senate to try the the president and behave as impartial jurists. When did they even make the claim of being jurists? They are not senators.

You do understand the difference between juror and jurist, do you not?

A jurist, by definition, is one having a thorough knowledge of law, whereas a juror is a person summoned to serve on a jury. See the difference?

As members of the House of Representatives that are responsible for making the laws of a nation, one would hope that Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi do have a thorough knowledge of law.

It is encouraging to know that you are questioning when they ever claimed to have a thorough knowledge of the law, i.e., When did they even make the claim of being jurists?

Perhaps you are beginning to realize their supposed “knowledge of the law” isn’t anywhere near thorough, nor even passable. There is hope for you yet.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Let’s tackle this, shall we?

During Clinton’s impeachment …

the rules for House investigations were written after Clinton’s impeachment.

And where did those so-called Republican rules stipulate that all evidence would be gathered only by the majority party in the house, that no outside or special investigators would gather evidence based upon any existing laws, and that no witnesses would be called to testify on behalf of the president about to be impeached?

I’ll wait while you produce those rules.

 

[Allie1]

that no witnesses would be called to testify on behalf of the president about to be impeached?

Didnt they subpoena Mulvaney? Barr? Giuliani? Are they not witnesses who could "testify on behalf of the president? Trump blocked them from coming forward and testifying.

 

[dvdjs]

The only rules in play are the Senate rules and the Constitution, which again say nothing about impeachment managers.

in reality, the RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS explicitly mention the role of the House managers. Please consider reading the rules.

And even more astounding that some in this thread cannot see Biden’s quid pro quo transaction on behalf of his own son as corrupt gain

Biden’s action was on behalf of the government of the United States and its allies.
In reality, by ousting a corrupt prosecutor who had failed to pursue actions against the head of Burisma, Biden acted against the interests of his son.

And where did those so-called Republican rules

In the rules. Please consider reading them.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

that no witnesses would be called to testify on behalf of the president about to be impeached?

Didnt they subpoena Mulvaney? Barr? Giuliani? Are they not witnesses who could "testify on behalf of the president? Trump blocked them from coming forward and testifying.

I believe they subpoenaed documents, emails, and such from Barr and Giuliani but not to testify. The problem with documents on their own without any possibility of explaining them means whatever might appear damning could be extrapolated and presented out of context.

Mulvaney, I think, had a hair appointment that day and couldn’t cancel on short notice.

Besides, they were all very busy actually carrying out their duties of State and profession to be distracted by such nonsense.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

And even more astounding that some in this thread cannot see Biden’s quid pro quo transaction on behalf of his own son as corrupt gain

Biden’s action was on behalf of the government of the United States and its allies.
In reality, by ousting a corrupt prosecutor who had failed to pursue actions against the head of Burisma, Biden acted against the interests of his son.

Still heavily into reading fiction, I see.

 

[dvdjs]

Still heavily into reading fiction

There is an abundance of contemporaneous evidence supporting the narrative that i summarized. Trump’s fake story, a relatively recent creation, is falsified by that abundant evidence.

 

[mrad25]

in reality, the RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS explicitly mention the role of the House managers. Please consider reading the rules.

Who said they didn’t. Again you are confusing House, Senate and Constitutional rules. Consider ready the rules yourself. It’s EASY. Here it is for you:

• The House would be appointing its managers to be the prosecution, not to present the articles, because that isn’t required.
• The Constitution requires neither that there be impeachment managers, nor that articles are transmitted by them, or at all.
• Mitch McConnell needs only to make a rule the passage of the articles triggers the trial, set a date for the trial, and if the House doesn’t appoint and send managers, then the trial proceeds without the prosecution present.

SIMPLE.

“Defense are you ready to proceed?” “Yes we are, Mr. Chief Justice.”
“Prosecution are you ready to proceed?”…“Prosecution?” “Is anyone present from the prosecution?”
“We’ll give them until 1:00…If they aren’t here, case dismissed.”
At 1:05, Roberts… “What the heck? And I wore this cool robe to the Senate…”

 

[dvdjs]

Who said they didn’t.

The only rules in play are the Senate rules and the Constitution, which again say nothing about impeachment managers.

That would be you.

 

[mrad25]

That would be you.

The Constitution say nothing about them. That’s correct. The Senate as I stated in numerous other posts has “no obligation to allow those “managers” to address the Senate or even have access to the Senate.” Read the Senate rules. It’s a moot point as explained above.

 

[Allie1]

Mulvaney, I think, had a hair appointment that day and couldn’t cancel on short notice.

Besides, they were all very busy actually carrying out their duties of State and profession to be distracted by such nonsense

Well, if Mulvaney’s hair is more important than coming forward as a witness to testify on behalf of the president then thats the fault of Trump and Mulvaney. What about Mcgahn? he was subpoenaed, couldn’t he have testified to clear the president? Trump specifically told him not to. What about Pompeo? He is a key figure in Trump’s administration couldn’t he had come forward to testify on behalf of the president? What about Bolton? He was called to testify. Could not one of these men come forward and testify on “behalf of the president” as a witness?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

And where did those so-called Republican rules

In the rules. Please consider reading them.

As far as I can tell, the only rules that apply here regarding the House is…

Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments.

As to the actual rules guiding the House, there are four views on the subject but no set rules:

1. Congressional Interpretation that the standard enunciated by the Constitution is subject entirely to whatever interpretation Congress collectively wishes to make.
   This would be the one espoused by the Democrats currently leading the House, i.e., Pelosi, et al, but this is the view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve only at the pleasure of Congress.
2. An Indictable Crime is necessary for impeachment because that is the Constitutional standard. Which means it is necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This would be and has been the standard Republican view.
3. A Misdemeanor alone, and not an indictable crime, is required to impeach and remove a President. Some, but not many legal scholars take this position.
4. The Relating to the President’s Official Duties position is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties but far more serious than bad administration.

As far as I can tell there are no set rules for the House to guide impeachment, but the Dems have not followed the Republican standard 2), but have opted for 1) for no good reason except that they have the votes to carry it out.

So you were just making stuff up when you claimed…

the rules for House investigations were written after Clinton’s impeachment.

We were speaking of the House and not the Senate, correct?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Mulvaney, I think, had a hair appointment that day and couldn’t cancel on short notice.

Besides, they were all very busy actually carrying out their duties of State and profession to be distracted by such nonsense

Well, if Mulvaney’s hair is more important than coming forward as a witness to testify on behalf of the president then thats the fault of Trump and Mulvaney. What about Mcgahn? he was subpoenaed, couldn’t he have testified to clear the president? Trump specifically told him not to. What about Pompeo? He is a key figure in Trump’s administration couldn’t he had come forward to testify on behalf of the president? What about Bolton? He was called to testify. Could not one of these men come forward and testify on “behalf of the president” as a witness?

Why would they? The allegations from the whistleblower were about the phone call. The complete transcript was released. There was no quid pro quo.

Schiff and Nadler have nothing else and no evidential reason to think there is something more. Why waste more time on a fishing expedition? If the Dems actually had something they would have produced it.

Guilty until proven innocent is a horrible standard for proceeding.

Have you learned nothing from the Mueller debacle?

This is why I believe Trump wants it to go to trial in the Senate. He is free to call any witnesses he chooses.

This is also why the Dems will stall and eventually back out. Wait for it.

 

[HarryStotle]

There is an abundance of contemporaneous evidence supporting the narrative that i summarized.

You’ve produced more “evidence” in that one line than Schiff and Nadler have in weeks. Congratulations.

 

[Allie1]

Why would they

Because they were subpoenaed. Because they are witnesses to these events. And because they can testify on “behalf of the president.”

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Why would they

Because they were subpoenaed. Because they are witnesses to these events. And because they can testify on “behalf of the president.”

There are many reasons for not testifying, especially before a partial committee of those bent on your destruction.

They did the right thing – wait for the impartial trial headed by a Supreme Court Justice where all relevant evidence can be presented and impartially assessed.

 

[mrad25]

Well a Senate trial could be fun. Trump probably can see it now. Pelosi and the Democrats crave fairness (I’m chocking on that), give them the fairness they crave. I think McConnell might be persuaded to go along with the idea. To make sure the process is scrupulously fair, here’s what to do: just have McConnell follow exactly the same rules in the Senate that Adam Schiff did in the House. There you go, fairness!

This is how it will work: Sen. McConnell gets to make up the rules he wants, just as Schiff did, and being in the majority (as the Dems were in the House), the Republicans vote straight party-line to approve them. Since Dems are the minority, they don’t get to call witnesses, but they do, and the witnesses can offer any “evidence” they want. Dems can ask questions –- that’s only fair –- but only the ones McConnell approves. The Senate majority has the option to dismiss the charges, of course, or it can subpoena Adam Schiff, his staff, Eric Ciaramella (alias “the whistleblower”), Hunter Biden, Joe Biden (after all, just because he’s running for President, he doesn’t have immunity), and numerous others. Maybe even Ukrainian President Zelensky would like to come testify — no quid pro quo involved. THAT would be fair. After the way the Democrats treated the House Republicans, the slightest concession they get from the Senate should be considered gravy!

 

[Elias]

Loading…

babylonbee.com

 

[dvdjs]

The Constitution say nothing about them.

Burt you spoke of the

the Senate rules and the Constitution

and in your relative clause used “say” not “says”.

So let’s be clear. You posted:

The only rules in play are the Senate rules and the Constitution, which again say nothing about impeachment managers.

That sentence is false.

Read the Senate rules.

The Senate rules make clear that the proceedings are initiated by the presentation of the House managers. The Senate may change its rules but unless they change the role of the Housae mangers, it is what it is.

As far as I can tell, the only rules that apply here regarding the House is…

You are mistaken about the the rules governing the Houses of Congress.

I have only one response if you think Democrats in the Senate like Warren, Sanders, Booker, Harris or any of the other ones will act as an impartial juror…

Curious. I have not given have indication whatsoever about the service of Warren etc. as jurors. Perhaps you have me confused with another poster.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, whatever informs it.
But in the case of McConnell and Graham we have their own statements committing to partiality against the oath that they must take.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Not only is he still president but he will be elected again in 2020 .