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.
There is often confusion about impeachment vs. conviction, and now I'm wondering about confusion about hearings vs. trial.
First, I'm assuming this is considered a trial. And I know that people have already complained that any trial should obviously include witnesses. But I was suddenly thinking that any trial should also include timely rebuttal. Like when lawyers argue in court. It seems unfair that neither side can raise objections at the time, and neither can argue against what was said right at the time.
Second, it's interesting that the Democrats argued the case themselves. But although a big percentage of senators are lawyers, the Republicans are not only employing hired guns, but a whole battery of them. Doesn't that seem odd?
There is often confusion about impeachment vs. conviction, and now I'm wondering about confusion about hearings vs. trial.
First, I'm assuming this is considered a trial. And I know that people have already complained that any trial should obviously include witnesses. But I was suddenly thinking that any trial should also include timely rebuttal. Like when lawyers argue in court. It seems unfair that neither side can raise objections at the time, and neither can argue against what was said right at the time.
Second, it's interesting that the Democrats argued the case themselves. But although a big percentage of senators are lawyers, the Republicans are not only employing hired guns, but a whole battery of them. Doesn't that seem odd?
It's entirely political and only has two possible outcomes - President is removed from office or is acquitted of charges. There is no guilty, not guilty, no contest, etc. Just political theater for the sake of politics. Nothing more, nothing less.
Either 67+ senators vote to remove him from office, or he is acquitted. Period.
After he leaves office, if a prosecutor thought they could pull it off, he could be tried in criminal or civil court over the charges related to this case, but that is a whole separate bag of conjecture.
Yes it's a trial, at least in the broadest sense of the word. The Constitution says, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments". But it looks to be a very limited trial in the sense that the only possible sentence is removal from office and being barred from holding future office for some period of time. After impeachment though, the former office holder can then be tried by the judicial branch for various crimes, whereupon they would receive appropriate legal protections such as an impartial jury.
I tried to watch it for a while today since a major network is carrying a portion of it, and I don't have cable tv.
It was unwatchably boring. Ken Starr was going on and on about historical context. Snoozefest.
I cant imagine having to sit in that chamber hour after hour, day after day listening to that junk.
The C-D political forum is much more stimulating and entertaining, so thanks Lech Mazur.
Let me know how it ends, but I think I already know.
Starr was indeed a bore. Two women this afternoon destroyed the case. Killed it. BTW once they got to all the queations about the bidens being legit only NBC was filming and they cut too before she finished.
FAKE NEWS. This whole thing isnt just a sham its a shame.
If you are comparing to a criminal case, this is a trial. Removal from office is the equivalent of a guilty verdict.
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.