Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HarryStotle said:
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.
Click to expand...
Then why do you complain that no witnesses came forward before the house committees to testify on behalf of the president before impeachment. The committees wanted Barr, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Mcgahn, Bolton. As just a few examples. When you say, witnesses were not called to testify on behalf of the president. . . . Many were called. None came forward. You are coming up with excuse after excuse as to why they shouldn’t testify before the committees on behalf of the president.
 
Last edited:
I think I’m catching on here. “Impartial” is now a euphemism for “blind and stupid”, because the argument made is that the Senate, in order to honor their oath of impartiality, is expected to completely ignore the one-sided, partisan, and biased way in which the House impeachment was conducted. They’re also expected to ignore the lack of substantive charges and evidence.
 
“Cool robe to the Senate” – sounds like you don’t think much of the Chief Justice, and perceive him as interested primarily in making a fashion statement. I think you’re joking a bit, there, as well.
 
Guinness said:
think I’m catching on here. “Impartial” is now a euphemism for “blind and stupid”,
Click to expand...
No. Impartial, at the bare minimum, means that you haven’t drawn and announced a conclusion before the trial.
 
To all my friends who are Trump supporters - one of your number one complaints is that the House inquiry was rigged, not fair, didn’t have due process.

Okay, that implies there is exculpatory evidence that shows the President is not guilty of what’s charged in the articles of impeachment, but the House didn’t let the Republicans call those witnesses.

NOW IS THE CHANCE! The Senate has the ability for a trial that calls all of the exculpatory witnesses. They have the ability to prove the charges are wrong and make fools of the House Democrats.

Why aren’t they embracing that? Is it that there are no exculpatory witnesses, just more witnesses that can corroborate the conspiracy?
 
Does it really matter? No matter what witnesses are called or what testimony is put forth, both sides have dug in and will either explain it away or dismiss it out of hand if it doesn’t fit into the their predetermined narrative. This is all just political theater that the average person could care less about because the outcome was fixed before the process even started. If this nation really felt the President was a threat to national security you’d have an out cry coming from outside of Washington that the representatives would respond to. Instead, we have partisan politicians using obscure procedural bi laws trying to out maneuver each other in an attempt to obtain more political power/money. It’s a joke and the only thing I look forward to is when it’s all over. Then we can move on to the next fabricated scandal the 24 hour media can push to keep advertisement dollars flowing in.
 
Last edited:
200,000(maybe) protestors out of a voting age population of 254,000,000. The term drop in the bucket comes to mind.

Loading…

www.federalregister.gov
 
PaulinVA said:
To all my friends who are Trump supporters - one of your number one complaints is that the House inquiry was rigged, not fair, didn’t have due process.

Okay, that implies there is exculpatory evidence that shows the President is not guilty of what’s charged in the articles of impeachment, but the House didn’t let the Republicans call those witnesses.
Click to expand...
In US legal jurisprudence, the prosecutor has to prove guilt, the accused doesn’t have to prove innocence, and judges are allowed to dismiss cases where there is prosecutorial misconduct.
PaulinVA said:
NOW IS THE CHANCE! The Senate has the ability for a trial that calls all of the exculpatory witnesses. They have the ability to prove the charges are wrong and make fools of the House Democrats.

Why aren’t they embracing that? Is it that there are no exculpatory witnesses, just more witnesses that can corroborate the conspiracy?
Click to expand...
You have to prove there’s a crime committed first, then the accused has the opportunity to offer a defense. In this case, the prosecutors have failed to prove their case to the jury, so there’s no obligation for the accused to present a defense.
PaulinVA said:
Poll: Sizable majority agrees Trump went too far with Ukraine scheme
Click to expand...
Trials aren’t conducted by polls, which are inherently unreliable.
 
Last edited:
You went from rallies of maybe 200,000 to a poll of a few dozen to prove that a majority of Americans want Trump removed? I’m not following the logic.

Either way, it’s just one more example of advertisement revenue being spent by news outlets in order to sell more advertisement. Everyone has their mind made up and will use any poll or pundit to reinforce their belief and dismiss anything counter to it. On both sides.
 
Last edited:
humbleseeker said:
Either way, it’s just one more example of advertisement revenue being spent by news outlets in order to sell more advertisement. Everyone has their mind made up and will use any poll or pundit to reinforce their belief and dismiss anything counter to it. On both sides.
Click to expand...
Largely true. I’m afraid that is largely true.
 
I clarified my post, you clearly missed that along with what I said originally. You again are confused. The Senate rules make clear the proceedings are initiated by ONLY delivery of the articles NOT presentation by the house managers. Again, the House Managers don’t even have to be present, it’s only the delivery of the articles that initiates the proceedings under the Senate rules. The Constitution however makes clear that this doesn’t have to happen for the Senate to act. The constitution does not require that the House actually physically send something that has passed that lower chamber, up to the Senate, before the Senate can take it up. Trigger Warning! I am about to post from the actual constitution:

Article 1, Section 7.2
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.

The constitution does not require the House to actually send things to the upper chamber that it has passed, nor does it require the Senate to wait on the lower chamber to physically send it something before it can act on that which has passed. Precedent is also irrelevant because of what the constitution says only a few paragraphs before section 7:

Article 1, Section 5.2
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

This section entitles the Senate to make its own rules on how it will proceed, and that includes on what legislation they will debate/vote on, and when they will do it, and those Senate rules can be changed with a majority vote. The constitution does not set out the procedure or a checklist that has to be followed, it is for each chamber to decide on its own. House procedure does not trump the constitution, and house procedure does not take precedent over senate procedure. Once the roll is taken, the votes are cast for House Res 755 (impeachment), the votes are recorded, and it is logged as passed in the books (it has been), then the Senate has full constitutional authority to take it up.

So the Senate can simply just change that rule, the House rules are not applicable here. Also, if the House impeaches the President, and then refuses to let the President defend himself, impeachment becomes null and void is what I’m hearing. The Democrats are afraid of what may be discovered, they don’t want to go there it seems like.
 
Last edited:
mrad25 said:
The Senate rules make clear the proceedings are initiated by only delivery of the articles not presentation by the house managers.
Click to expand...
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-99sdoc33/html/CDOC-99sdoc33.htm
II. RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON
IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
Code: 
I. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the
House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their
part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are
directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the
Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of
Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the
managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of
impeachment, agreeably to such notice.
II. When the managers of an impeachment shall be introduced
at the bar of the Senate and shall signify that they are ready
to exhibit articles of impeachment against any person, the
Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct the Sergeant at
Arms to make proclamation, who shall, after making
proclamation, repeat the following words, viz: ``All persons
are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while
the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the
United States articles of impeachment against ------ ------ ‘’;
after which the articles shall be exhibited, and then the
Presiding Officer of the Senate shall inform the managers that
the Senate will take proper order on the subject of the
impeachment, of which due notice shall be given to the House of
Representatives.
III. Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the
Senate shall, at 1 o’clock after noon of the day (Sunday
excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by
the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and
shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted)
after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the
Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much
longer as may, in its judgment, be needful. Before proceeding
to the consideration of the articles of impeachment, the
Presiding Officer shall administer the oath hereinafter
provided to the Members of the Senate then present and to the
other Members of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it
shall be to take the same.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The Senate receives the articles, that’ the message. If they don’t adopt managers, that’s irrelevant, since that is the House’s rule and not the Senate rules nor i the Constitution. If they don’t send the message the Senate can still proceed by changing their rule that they need the message delivered to only a vote is needed to proceed.Again it’s simple.
 
ALSO
IV. Sequence of events at the beginning of a trial…9
1. First a message(s) from the House of Representatives
is received containing the information that the House
has voted impeachment, adopted articles, and appointed
managers. The Senate then adopts an order informing the
House when it is ready to receive the managers to
present the articles of impeachment… 9
Trial of–
Halsted L. Ritter… 9
Harold Louderback… 11
Andrew Johnson… 12
…
3. Managers on the part of the House of Representatives
appear in the Senate Chamber and are announced. The
Presiding Officer directs them to the seats provided
for them and the Sergeant at Arms makes his
proclamation. The Chair recognizes the managers to
present the articles of impeachment, following a quorum
call if one is called for… 18
…
4. The managers, after presenting the articles of
impeachment, asked the Senate to take order for the
trial, and the Presiding Officer informs the managers
that the Senate will duly inform the House of
Representatives when ready for the trial. The managers
after delivering the articles of impeachment withdraw
from the Senate… 24
5. After the articles of impeachment have been presented
to the Senate, the next step is for the Senate to
organize for the trial. The Presiding Officer takes his
oath for the trial and then, as in the Ritter trial,
administers the oath to the Senators standing at their
seats. In the case of the Johnson trial, this procedure
was somewhat different since the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court presided… 25
Click to expand...
 
If you can’t understand that the House rules and what you are posting are the only rules that state impeachment managers need to be elected before the articles are delivered than I can’t help you. It’s easy as explained 1000 times, change the Senate rules to a vote is only needed instead of delivery of articles to proceed in the Senate. Again the House rules don’t matter here once the Senate can proceed.
 
Last edited:
NEWT GINGRICH: “All this shows is that this Impeachment was never real from start to finish. You have these closed door sessions with Schiff. You have a whistleblower who nobody can speak their name. You have unprecedented hearing where minority can’t even call witnesses. And now you have a situation where the House refuses to even deliver the articles to the Senate, which means legally there is no Impeachment. So this entire thing is one big joke from start to finish. And it will go down in history as the Impeachment that never was.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top