*****The Senate Trial to Impeach President Donald Trump****** (regular, election, elect)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You expressly referred to “Constitutional guarantees” and “the Confrontation Clause” and “the right to Due Process,” all of which are Constitutional protections. Now you’re going to pretend that you never said they applied? GTFO
Yes, those are the things guaranteed to those accused of a crime, obviously this is a political process, but again, if it was going to be a fair process, they should ensure fundamental fairness by adhering to similar principles as a criminal trial.....since you know, technically an impeachment is supposed to be an allegation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" despite the fact that they pushed forward without any crime whatsoever this time around.
I know very well that they can come up with whatever rules they want and they could have a completely sham process like the House did, but that obviously wouldn't be a fair process. The Senate is supposed to have more legitimacy than the rabble down in the House, I have higher expectations for them.
Yes, those are the things guaranteed to those accused of a crime, obviously this is a political process, but again, if it was going to be a fair process, they should ensure fundamental fairness by adhering to similar principles as a criminal trial.....since you know, technically an impeachment is supposed to be an allegation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" despite the fact that they pushed forward without any crime whatsoever this time around.
I know very well that they can come up with whatever rules they want and they could have a completely sham process like the House did, but that obviously wouldn't be a fair process. The Senate is supposed to have more legitimacy than the rabble down in the House, I have higher expectations for them.
That’s quite the impressive backpedal from your original claim that Trump has “the right to cross examine and confront anyone who gives testimony.” Hope you didn’t trip yourself up.
You also ignored my point that Trump can’t complain about the fairness of a process he refused to participate in, but I guess I should have expected that.
No. The question broke the law. It is illegal to publicly out a whistleblower.
Rand Paul may have tried to skirt the law by handing the written question to Justice Roberts, but Roberts was not about to break the law by permitting the question or even stating it aloud.
As it is in every trial, the judge decides what is permissable or not. Chief Justice Roberts is the nation's leading judge. His job is not to decide the outcome, but to decide the legalities of the proceedings. Breaking a law during the proceedings is not allowed in either this trial or a common trial. Because it is illegal to break the law in a trial just as much as it's illegal to break the law on the street.
Make no mistake, Bent. This is a real trial. It has its own rules, but it carries the weight of any common trial, civil or criminal. If the Senate convicts Trump, he's out of office at that moment.
And since a trial of impeachment has its own rules, there may be no grounds for appeal at all. Or there may, because almost everything is left up to the Senate. They all have to vote on every procedural issue.
Since no one has been convicted of impeachment so far, an appeal is still a mute subject that has never been addressed.
So you are saying that Chief Roberts knows the name of the whistleblower that's why he didn't read it? No one supposed to know the name of whistleblower except his lawyers, not even Schitty shiff, but we know better.
I was actually hoping for witnesses, so Mulvaney and Bolton gets called..then Eric Ciaramella, Hunter Biden and Shiff also gets called..
Honestly though, I'm sure Hunter is relieved he won't be called. This rapist and drug addict should go to jail instead.
No. The question broke the law. It is illegal to publicly out a whistleblower.
Not only is that not true, it's not what the question would have done....or rather if asked it wouldn't have done it. Given that he refused to ask it as written, he was confirming the identity of the whistleblower, something Adam Schiff did previously.
These are Republicans up for re-election and are running in 2020. I urge everyone to vote against them when they vote party over country and to not call witnesses.
These are Republicans up for re-election and are running in 2020. I urge everyone to vote against them when they vote party over country and to not call witnesses.
And yet they'll use their vote to end this sham to ensure their re-election. You'll actually have bi-partisan agreement in Arizona among 2 people that ran against one another in the last election.
I think there is Only ONE Senator the Leftists have a prayer of getting on their side ... Famous Never Trumper (and most Bitter) — The Jr Senator from Utah. Will he stand alone with the Leftists (against his own Party and the Citizens of Utah) that want to Nullify the Vote of 63 Million Citizens?
Doubtful
Lamar Alexander just announce he will not vote for witnesses. Guess he wants a guaranteed spot at mcconnell's ranch pinochle table. I hear he makes a mean mint julep.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
