The Catholic Case Against Impeachment - Crisis

[redal]

There are no facts presented in the Impeachment claims.

“facts” can be deceptive…when an administration refuses to release documents, or to allow testimony, you are correct…there are no facts…but their are only no facts presents…I seem to recall the President, in the past, making several claims about refusal to be forthright being an indication of guilt…I guess its okay for others, but not for him.

 

[redal]

Not in this country. We believe that a person is innocent until proven otherwise.

You might be confusing “Not Guilty” with innocence. When testimony or documents are blocked, innocence is hardly proven.

 

[Elizabeth3]

“facts” can be deceptive…when an administration refuses to release documents, or to allow testimony, you are correct…there are no facts…but their are only no facts presents…I seem to recall the President, in the past, making several claims about refusal to be forthright being an indication of guilt…I guess its okay for others, but not for him

You are assuming that there are facts or only facts related to the case and nothing in the documents or witness conversations that have to do with military or diplomatic secrets as re: foreign relations. Again, it’s not a refusal to release documents or an unwillingness to be forthright to ask the courts to decide what should and should not be released.

 

[redal]

You are assuming that there are facts or only facts related to the case and nothing in the documents or witness conversations that have to do with military or diplomatic secrets as re: foreign relations.

Yes, I am.

But if there is a reluctance to bring fact to light, my assumption is there is something being hidden to avoid the ramifications.

 

[MikeInVA]

Only in a criminal trial.

What other venue establishes guilt or innocence?

And the investigators are not bound by this principle. Only the jurors. The investigators must assume the “worst” and must try to find all the incriminating evidence they can. Then comes the defense and they try to explain or explain away the evidence.

Still, the defendant does not need to prove his innocence, only that the charges are erroneous.

Our system rests on the adversarial principle.

Our system is based on the presumption of innocence. The adversarial method is how cases are adjudicated.

 

[redal]

What other venue establishes guilt or innocence?

A moot point if the administration and GOP controlled Senate refuses to allow documents or testimony to establish guilt or innocence.

 

[MikeInVA]

If there was any evidence to support a case against the president it would have been brought forward by now.

 

[redal]

If there was any evidence to support a case against the president it would have been brought forward by now.

If it had been allowed…that’s why one article of impeachment is obstruction of congress.

I understand the supporters of the president claiming there has been no conclusive evidence proving guilt, but they compound their owns woes by not bringing facts (which could be beneficial to the President) to light…failure to do so creates bad optics.

 

[PaulinVA]

“facts” can be deceptive…when an administration refuses to release documents, or to allow testimony, you are correct…there are no facts…but their are only no facts presents…I seem to recall the President, in the past, making several claims about refusal to be forthright being an indication of guilt…I guess its okay for others, but not for him.

Well, obstruction of Congress is the only fact available.

I don’t think the President has asserted Privilege over anyone’s testimony. He just made some specious claim to “absolute immunity”, which isn’t a thing.

 

[redal]

Well, obstruction of Congress is the only fact available.

Then I guess there is enough for a guilty verdict?

 

[PaulinVA]

Then I guess there is enough for a guilty verdict?

I think there is on the obstruction charge. More and more is coming out on the first charge of abuse. It’s why the Senate doesn’t want witnesses or testimony. There is no defense.

 

[Elizabeth3]

But if there is a reluctance to bring fact to light, my assumption is there is something being hidden to avoid the ramifications.

Of course that is your assumption. No openness to other possibilities.

 

[redal]

I think there is on the obstruction charge. More and more is coming out on the first charge of abuse. It’s why the Senate doesn’t want witnesses or testimony. There is no defense.

absolutely agree!

 

[redal]

Of course that is your assumption. No openness to other possibilities.

but where is the openness by the administration and the senate to provide “other possibilities”?

 

[Elizabeth3]

but where is the openness by the administration and the senate to provide “other possibilities”?

In their willingness to obey whatever the court decides they must turn over.

 

[Horton]

You might be confusing “Not Guilty” with innocence. When testimony or documents are blocked, innocence is hardly proven.

Good thing no one has to prove innocence.

 

[niceatheist]

redal:

You might be confusing “Not Guilty” with innocence. When testimony or documents are blocked, innocence is hardly proven.

Good thing no one has to prove innocence.

This is an impeachment. It looks like a judicial process, but it isn’t one. The Senate is not a jury; it’s a judge, jury and executioner (figuratively speaking). The Chief Justice is just there to maintain order, because in a trial in the Senate, there are no disinterested parties to oversee the proceedings.

 

[Horton]

Even with that Trump doesn’t have to disprove the allegations. It is up to the Senate to prove the articles are true or not true.

 

[MikeInVA]

an unfortunate portion of the Senate already declared that they will perjure themselves by violating their required oath.

I think what you meant to say is that a significant portion of the Senate will not dignify this charade with the appearance of propriety.

 

[dvdjs]

I think what you meant to say

Honestly? …