Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

[Ender]

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. What is iot that McConnell, has said - among other things to the contrary - that makes you think he is standing for a fair an impartial trial by the rules of the Senate? What has Schumer said that is contrary to those rules?

The existing Senate rules, which were the ones used for the Clinton impeachment, are that questions of witnesses will be settled as they arise, not predetermined before the trial begins. What Schumer wants is to change that rule so that questions of witnesses are resolved before trial. The previous rules were good enough for all 100 senators then, and they should be good enough now. This is just more of the “we’ll conduct this non-trial in the court of public opinion” where the Democrats can better control it.

 

[dvdjs]

The existing Senate rules,

Here are the existing Senate Rules.

Loading…

www.govinfo.gov

They do not help me understand what you are talking about.

If you are talking about negotiations between Lott and Daschle that led to resolustion on matters such as:

How long should the trial be? How much time should each side be allowed to make its case? Should witnesses be called? If so, how many, and which ones? Should witnesses testify on the Senate floor or be deposed elsewhere? When should a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment be in order, and for how long should the Senate debate it?

That is what Schumer and McConnell are negotiating now, just as Lott and Dascle did then.

 

[Ender]

That is what Schumer and McConnell are negotiating now, just as Lott and Dascle did then.

I guess the question is not whether this was done, but when it was done. Schumer wants to do it before the trial starts, and, given that no articles have even been sent up, before it is known whether there will even be a trial.

I’m glad you found those rules. This one seems relevant to the question:

XI. That in the trial of any impeachment the Presiding Officer of the Senate, if the Senate so orders, shall appoint a committee of Senators to receive evidence and take testimony at such times and places as the committee may determine…Unless otherwise ordered by the Senate, the rules of procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting on impeachment trials shall govern the procedure and practice of the committee so appointed.

Again, if there is no trial then the rules of the trial are irrelevant, and there is no question of following rules that haven’t been set in process.

 

[JButky]

There is no way to justify hiding evidence then claiming the evidence is insufficient. Unless it is a trial of Ceasar and the withholding is based on his sovereignty or living god status.

And yet, that is exactly what the Dems have done and then rushing to deliver articles and then saying we did a bad job with poor evidence. They are the ones trying to play god. It’s plainly obvious that they want to string this out for as long as they can, and if they can’t, they’ll try and create some other issue to impeach him again. Some of them have even stated this. Here’s a quote from Al Green:

“There is no limit on the number of the times the Senate can vote to convict or not [convict] a president. No limit to the number of times a House can vote to impeach, or not, a president. So my belief is that the speaker will probably say we are going to move forward with what we have now, but we are not going to end investigations and that there may be a possible opportunity to do other things at a later time.”

There is ZERO fairness to the Dems approach. It should be plainly obvious; they’ve been saying it since Trump’s inauguration. Well that didn’t work, let’s try this. That didn’t work either, let’s try and get him on that. It’s just perverse!

 

[dvdjs]

I guess the question is not whether this was done, but when it was done.

Have a look at the Lott Daschle piece that I quoted from:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...te-can-hold-fair-impeachment-trial-we-did-it/
Daschle and Lott prepared two resolutions for the conduct of the trial. The first was passed at the outset. The other, regarding witnesses was more contentious “was more contentious, but the handling of those depositions was later worked out in a way both sides could live with.”

\I am still unclear on what you think is amiss. For my part, Public statements by McConnell and by Graham are incompatible with the oath that they must take under the Rules.

 

[Maximus1]

That is an incredible story or fairy tale. Look at it’s twisting paths into vistas of evil dooers.
Let me help.
Call the witnesses everyone knows are vital to know the truth( they are Trump’s hand picked not ringers).
Provide documents.
The Democrat offer is that and begin the trial tomorrow.
You had to devise a titanic epic of the war of good and evil and the truth is this is a 5 second delay if this is truly a search for truth.
We know Bolten, Mulvany, and 1 or two others are key witnesses. We also know your extravagant story has one purpose. Hide truth

 

[Maximus1]

You are absolutely right.
As Catholics we view oaths as Jesus said at the sermon on the mount. Refined by the CCC a violated oath makes a liar of the HOLY SPIRIT.
McConnel and Graham went on record stating exactly why they cannot swear that oath.

 

[Maximus1]

What is zero fairness? An impeachment for using those " people’s" funds to extort a foreign leaders personal help in the election?
Those are the facts to be proven or disproven. All of the other victim narratives are irrelevant.

 

[Guinness]

You are arguing about " what would be" the final value of evidence in a trial. Without knowing and hearing it.

I don’t see where I am.

There is no way to justify hiding evidence then claiming the evidence is insufficient.

What evidence is being hidden?

So far thisc attempt to hide evidence has one basis. McConnell has the power to act as accessory.
The public has not seen a trial. That is certain. The jury has one fundemental function in a trial. To assess credibility and decide the “weight” of evidence. You can’t do that without evidence.

Juries don’t call witnesses or accumulate evidence, that is the role of the prosecutor. In an impeachment, the Senate is the jury and the House is the prosecutor. If the House didn’t call all the witnesses it wanted or gather all the available evidence, then it should have waited to file impeachment articles, until it had. The House chose not to do that, and is trying to shift the blame to the Senate to fix their incomplete work. The Senate is, rightly, declining to do so.

The public has not seen a trial.

The public has seen the trial, that’s what happens in the House of Representatives. The prosecutors make their case and then present it to the jury to determine whether or not their is sufficient evidence to convict. The public does not, in a trial, get to see jury deliberations.

 

[Ender]

Daschle and Lott prepared two resolutions for the conduct of the trial. The first was passed at the outset. The other, regarding witnesses was more contentious “was more contentious, but the handling of those depositions was later worked out in a way both sides could live with.”

“Daschle and Lott prepared two resolutions for the conduct of the trial.” At this point there is no trial. “The first was passed at the outset.” At the outset of what? The trial or negotiations in preparation for the trial? “… the handling of those depositions was later worked out…” Later when? Before or after the trial started?

I am still unclear on what you think is amiss.

The issue Pelosi raised is in regard to witnesses, the question that was “later worked out” in the Clinton impeachment. She and Schumer want this “worked out” prior to the trial even starting. Not how it was done before. I will also point out that the article you cited referred to talks between the leaders of the minority and majority parties in the Senate. There were no discussions between the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader in the Senate. Pelosi is not a party to what happens in the Senate.

For my part, Public statements by McConnell and by Graham are incompatible with the oath that they must take under the Rules.

Of course you do. It apparently bothers you more when a person admits to bias (Senate Republicans) than when a person demonstrates it through his actions (House Democrats)

Call the witnesses everyone knows are vital to know the truth…

If you actually believed this you would not have to invent excuses for why the whistle blower was never called.

For my part, Public statements by McConnell and by Graham are incompatible with the oath that they must take under the Rules.

\I am still unclear on what you think is amiss. For my part, Public statements by McConnell and by Graham are incompatible with the oath that they must take under the Rules.
[/quote]

 

[Maximus1]

A few issues here.
Lott was the majority leader with Clinton, a Democrat, impeached. This circumstance is completely different. There was no chance of a truly FIXO trial and whatever Lott did had to appear legitimate. Clinton was also at 73% in the polls AFTER IMPEACHMENT which made it POLITICALLY necessary. In this case you have a majority leader placing Trump’s lawyers virtually in charge while signalling his final vote before his oath. This telegraphed outcome despite knowing the key witnesses remain to be taken.
Second, the Senate is free to call who they want.
Third the Democrats had a sound reason not to call the whistleblower.
Trump identified him traitor. Trump insinuated death as the remedy for traitors. This while the statute seeks protection. This is ultimate witness intimidation for the whistleblower and everyone else. The Democrats did precisely what should be done and has always been done with no style intimidation to protect the integrity of testimony. This of course is basic and standard steps to counter intimidation.

 

[Maximus1]

There has been no trial. I hear the Trump sound bite but it I not true because the Constitution says the Senate holds the trial.
Now that this is clarified, the rest of your issues are easy to dispose of.
The House wants to call the primary witnesses. That leaves the Senate blocking evidence.
Next
Trump set a 100% prohibition on people testifying. 100% prohibition on production of documents.
And most important:
TRUMP HAS NEVER ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. NEVER! NEVER! WHICH LEAVES PERHAPS DIVINE SOVEREIGN PRIVILEGE WHICH IS NOTHING AT ALL.
It is a NON LEGAL AND NON EXISTENT BASIS TO OBSTRUCT WHICH can only work if McConnell is a blindly loyal accessory of the Executive branch.

 

[Maximus1]

If you don’t see where you are let me tell you.
McConnell has rendered a verdict without knowing, and in fact preventing 4 key witnesses and documents. ( And of course his Verdict speech will rely upon the very absence of this evidence he is responsible for excluding. In concert with direction from Trump’s legal team )
The model. Putting mafia in charge of the Godfathers trial.

 

[Guinness]

Second, the Senate is free to call who they want.

And they’re free to not call any witnesses too.

Third the Democrats had a sound reason not to call the whistleblower.
Trump identified him traitor. Trump insinuated death as the remedy for traitors.

In a “fair trial” the accused gets to face his accusers. Assuming Trump decided to prosecute the 'whistleblower", he would have a right to a fair trial, or are you asserting that Trump would order the CIA to “whack” the guy. Since the guy apparently works at the CIA, that would seem unrealistic.

There has been no trial. I hear the Trump sound bite but it I not true because the Constitution says the Senate holds the trial.

The Senate decides how it conducts its process. The Constitution is silent on the matter.

The House wants to call the primary witnesses.

The House was free to do so during its hearings, but it has no authority to force the Senate to do so.

Trump set a 100% prohibition on people testifying. 100% prohibition on production of documents.

The House should have taken the matter to court to resolve the process, they decided not to. Its not like the Senate has any more authority than the House to demand that Executive Branch officials answer its subpoenas.

TRUMP HAS NEVER ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. NEVER! NEVER! WHICH LEAVES PERHAPS DIVINE SOVEREIGN PRIVILEGE WHICH IS NOTHING AT ALL.
It is a NON LEGAL AND NON EXISTENT BASIS TO OBSTRUCT WHICH can only work if McConnell is a blindly loyal accessory of the Executive branch.

Why is it McConnell’s job to resolve this? If the House wanted certain White House officials to testify, they should have gone to court to try and force it. They didn’t, and now their complaining because McConnell doesn’t want to do it either? McConnell doesn’t want to take this up at all. He’d much rather continue filling Trump’s judicial appointments. If the House submits the Articles, the Senate will conduct whatever trial they want according to the rules they establish, and that probably won’t include calling witnesses, which you should probably be thankful for unless you think the witnesses you want to call are the only ones that will be called, in which case, you’re remarkably naive about how politics works.

 

[JButky]

An impeachment for using those " people’s" funds to extort a foreign leaders personal help in the election?
Those are the facts to be proven or disproven. All of the other victim narratives are irrelevant.

Unfortunately for you, that’s the irrelevant narrative that doesn’t support the facts talking, and ultimately why the whole House impeachment hearing was a sham ending in articles that don’t hold any merit. It is also why Pelosi and the Dems are withholding sending them to the Senate. It’s an easy acquittal for the Senate given what the evidence shows. And it makes a laughing stock of the House Democrats, but then again, we already seen enough of it and witnessed their pathetic multiple attempts to simply try and discredit this President though making stuff up and propagandizing it with a complicit fake news media. And then add their confessions to come up with even more stuff to keep this an ongoing charade.

If you are buying the fake narrative the Dems created then surely you will be willing to buy several of the Brooklyn bridges I have for sale.

Free Kool-aid with every purchase so stock up! And yes, that offer is less ridiculous than what the Dems are offering up!

 

[Maximus1]

The witnesses are being hidden by Trump and now MCCONNELL because they will implicate Trump in impeachable offenses. There can be no other explanation because exonerating witnesses would not be withheld.
So we begin with a collaboration of Trump and McConnell to cover up crime and a democratic effort to put it before America.
All of your other arguments are a variation on this truth.
Well they could have gone to court:
This would be an invitation to Trump that he is not subject to the rule of law until after he violated it and gets reelected. Another words a surrender of the rule of law. EVERYONE KNOWS IT. All you are saying is ," hey live with the fact that Trump is not subject to anything. Like a king. I won’t so don’t bother. Please understand that when you type, I know for certain that it ignores what Trump actually did.

 

[JButky]

If the House wanted certain White House officials to testify, they should have gone to court to try and force it.

Exactly! And they didn’t because they couldn’t bear to have that loss in court and then have a major issue to maintain their personal destruction narrative.

 

[Maximus1]

I know the facts. Over 30 years experience I law, and I recognise there is no defense to the truth of the articles and charges. History will show it. I am sure people can justify anything. Not much of anything else you wrote worth responding to.

 

[Maximus1]

How is it possible for the Democrats loose in court? If no privilege was asserted, what is the basis of total stonewalling?
You speak as if EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE was actually asserted. It was not quite deliberately. The option of going to court was to delay the impeachment until after Trump cheats and violates the law.

 

[Cathoholic]

Summary of the democrats recent fake impeachment result . . . .

(A fake impeachment that has not been turned over to the Senate despite the alleged “existential threat” and gloom and doom that we all are under!)

5 Things the MSM Refuse to Report About Impeachment​

.

The leftist swamp supporters look at American citizens as beasts who need to be spoken for.

They view the American people as animals that need to be micro-managed because they cannot get by (without them of course!).

This despite many of these same leftist “leaders” having lives that are a shambles themselves.