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.
No, you are not right. A fair trial takes place when the evidence is examined, and the verdict is based on that evidence. When the indictment was decided is 100% irrelevant.
The trial is not fair when the verdict is announced before the trial even begins. Such announcement mocks the Constitution. If they were going to acuity him no matter what, then they should have sat down, look at the evidence and then find him not guilty. That way they would have retained at least some of their credibility.
I think people are losing their faith in the political system as whole, and that means both parties, the actions of the Congress, the White House and even the Supreme Court. It started in the late 1990s, but now the cancer is growing on steroids.
A " fair " trial from a group of people who were talking about impeaching him years before they could come up with a so called crime.....
Get off your high horse,. No one is buying your fake outrage.
Yes, its the same process that president Clinton got for his impeachment trial.
You can be no more fair than to have the same process for both a democrat, and Republican president.
Only Clinton turned over documents and testified. Trump has done neither. Obstruction is the only way he does business with Congress and forget about oversight. The Republican's are afraid of him so they cower in a corner. Forget about the oath they took. They will do whatever it takes to save their own careers. Truth and justice are not in their sight of vision. Only the vote that stands with a crook.
Every single one has, and if not a foreign leader, then somebody else, because shaking people down and a million other shady activities that go into reelection are the stock in trade for the entire political class.
It's what people in power do. Trump is simply unpopular with Democrats and thus, a majority of media as well given their role as propaganda arm for the Democrat party, so his business as usual antics are now a national panic. But they really are business as usual. No less than 5 members of Biden's family have profited huge off his time as VP, and every single one of them did so exactly at a time when the entity handing out the profit needed something from Obama's White House. Hillary's nonsense is beyond well documented at this point, as is Obama's, and Dubyah's, and Reagan's and Kennedy's, etc. And that is just in the Presidential class. The House and Senate are up to no damn good 24/7/365. But the media can't cover it all, so you don't get to hear about much of it until one of them screws up so bad the media is forced to deal with it, like Cold Cash Jefferson, Charlie "Damn the IRS and Their Taxes" Rangle, Ted "Gimme My Bridges to Nowhere Or I'll Kill Myself" Stevens, etc.
The Dems want a payback scalp for Clinton, and they figured with the media completely in the tank for them, they'd get it without fallout. Well, they get the asterisk, they won't get the removal, and they'll have some fallout, but not that bad methinks.
And again, the republic shall endure.
I don't give a crap about Clinton, much less a scalp or other payback. I want governmental transparency and accountability, not stonewalling supported by partisans and sycophants. People can disagree as to whether or not Trump soliciting an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens is a removable offense. Americans should not disagree as to whether the core information as to what did or did not happen should be made public.
In the grand scheme of things, Trump's removal/non-removal is small potatoes. The bigger issue is the ever-increasing ad unchecked authority of the executive to consolidate power and block Congressional and public oversight, a problem which existed before Trump but has been materially exacerbated and underscored by his unprecedented and untrammeled exercise of that power in defiance of long-standing political norms that acted as a corollary to the formal rules to keep the Executive in check.
To be sure, I disagree with Trump on many policy issues, particularly in the area of his poor foreign policy decisions (an area in which I also thought Obama was mediocre). However, my greater concern is not Trump remaining in office, but the precedent that this inquiry (or lack thereof) will set concerning the consolidation of power and resistance to oversight by the White House. In my view, that is the far more dangerous problem and the very one that the Framers expressly warned us must be avoided.
Everyone, but particularly so-called "Conservatives" who ostensibly believe in small government, accountability, and oversight, should be appalled at what is transpiring. I know that I am.
No, you are not right. A fair trial takes place when the evidence is examined, and the verdict is based on that evidence. When the indictment was decided is 100% irrelevant.
The trial is not fair when the verdict is announced before the trial even begins. Such announcement mocks the Constitution. If they were going to acuity him no matter what, then they should have sat down, look at the evidence and then find him not guilty. That way they would have retained at least some of their credibility.
I think people are losing their faith in the political system as whole, and that means both parties, the actions of the Congress, the White House and even the Supreme Court. It started in the late 1990s, but now the cancer is growing on steroids.
They are using the same process they afforded the Clinton impeachment. Doesn't get much more fair than using the same process that was approved 100-0 in 1998-9. The Senate did not call new witnesses, gather new evidence, issue new subpoenas, etc. This is how it went:
The House presented articles and their case over three days (Jan 14-16).
The defense presented their case over three days (Jan 19-21).
The Senate asked both the House and the defense questions for two days (Jan 22-23).
Sen Byrd moves for dismissal (Jan 25)
House rep Bryant moves to call witness testimony (Jan 26)
Senate votes on both motion, Byrd dismissal defeated, Bryant witness testimony passes (Jan 27)
Senate agrees to videotaped, closed door depositions of three witnesses WHO HAD ALREADY GIVEN TESTIMONY IN THE INVESTIGATION PRIOR TO IMPEACHMENT, and that excerpts of those videotaped depositions would suffice (Senate vote 70-30) as testimony (Feb 1-3 for depositions, Feb 6 for playing excerpts of depositions).
Closing arguments by both sides (Feb 8)
Closed door deliberations (Feb 9-12)
Vote on charges (Feb 12)
And on party line voting for one article, and 5 votes from party line on the other, both articles failed in the Senate. If you want a partisan impeachment, a 67 seat majority in the Senate seems to be a pretty necessary requirement.
That was what happened and McConnell's rules for this impeachment are virtually identical. If the House gets witness testimony, it almost guaranteed will be from ONLY those witnesses who already testified in the investigation, and almost as surely only closed door depositions, with excerpts being sufficient as testimony. And they did not vote on those witnesses before the trial of Clinton began, so there is no need to do it before the trial of Trump begins.
McConnell really is holding to the Clinton playbook, and that is as fair as it gets. What was good for one President should be good for another.
No, you are not right. A fair trial takes place when the evidence is examined, and the verdict is based on that evidence. When the indictment was decided is 100% irrelevant.
The trial is not fair when the verdict is announced before the trial even begins. Such announcement mocks the Constitution. If they were going to acuity him no matter what, then they should have sat down, look at the evidence and then find him not guilty. That way they would have retained at least some of their credibility.
I think people are losing their faith in the political system as whole, and that means both parties, the actions of the Congress, the White House and even the Supreme Court. It started in the late 1990s, but now the cancer is growing on steroids.
And why do you suppose they didn’t do that? Wouldn’t that have been the easiest path for them, with minimal political fallout?
McConnell didn’t have to broadcast his bias. He didn’t have to openly meet with the administration. Because if these were REAL hearings, it would be stupid to so brazenly show your partisanship and bias. Nobody in their right minds would do such a thing. And say what you will about McConnell, he is not stupid or crazy. The only reason he would do such a thing is if he truly believed this whole thing was a sham. Clearly, there is nothing wrong with putting an end to a sham, so there is no reason to keep quiet about one’s intentions. There is no reason to be secretive about one’s bias.
Yah but it’s not if there is no witnesses or evidence. That is not the same as the Clinton trial and not fair. That’s what I call a sham trial. Show me a fair trial that did not have witnesses or evidence submitted... you can’t.
The house trial did not allow all witnesses.......
A " fair " trial from a group of people who were talking about impeaching him years before they could come up with a so called crime.....
Get off your high horse,. No one is buying your fake outrage.
Outraged? Don't project your own emotional status on me.
Someone talking about impeachment does not make Trump immune to it. He WAS impeached, and now there is a trial. The question is whether or not the trial is fair, and I think it cannot possible be fair since the "not guilty" verdict was announced before the trial begun. Such announcement shows the trial is rigged.
Such thing tends to make people lose faith in the system as whole. I have zero faith in our politicians no matter which party they represent, but obviously you still think they are trustworthy as long as the letter behind their name is to your liking.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 01-22-2020 at 08:19 AM..
The house trial did not allow all witnesses.......
(a) The House proceeding is not a trial
(b) The House proceeding had many witnesses who testified despite Trump trying to block them. They even had witnesses called by the GOP.
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.
