The Trump Impeachment Thread

[PocketZeven]

Typically by allowing both the defense and prosecutor to pick from a pool of eligible jurors picked by some sort of wizardry that has seen me on jury duty 4 times but not once for my wife.

Wow, To your experience do all jurors take their duty as honest as they should?

 

[TenEightyOne]

No, impeachment is definitely not over. If it is, then why is the impeachment process still continuing??

It isn't, I'm note sure why that's so hard to understand. The trial in the senate only occurs once impeachment has happened, which it has. You continue to pretend that somehow it's part of the process of impeachment - it isn't. I know you keep quoting one op-ed from a well-known lawyer but, as I said before, the weight of legal opinion is against that single edgy opinion. If there was any claimable basis to impeachment having suddenly altered to become a two-stage process then the Republicans would be all over it like a property magnate at a beauty pageant.

 

[Rallywagon]

Wow, To your experience do all jurors take their duty as honest as they should?

Some do, some treat it as the disturbance to their daily routine that it is.

 

[Dotini]

It isn't, I'm note sure why that's so hard to understand. The trial in the senate only occurs once impeachment has happened, which it has. You continue to pretend that somehow it's part of the process of impeachment - it isn't. I know you keep quoting one op-ed from a well-known lawyer but, as I said before, the weight of legal opinion is against that single edgy opinion. If there was any claimable basis to impeachment having suddenly altered to become a two-stage process then the Republicans would be all over it like a property magnate at a beauty pageant.

"You know nothing, Jon Snow"

The impeachment process is not over. The current articles are sitting on Nancy's desk. The process is consummated by sending the articles to the Senate for trial.

In addition to that, the current House could delete, revise or expand the current articles. They could and probably will bring additional impeachments after the current one is completed.

Instead of citing academic support, which I am always condemned for , why don't you try some critical thought?

Look at it this way. Suppose you wanted to impregnate the president instead of impeach him. But you foolishly wear a condom and your seed goes nowhere and you lay the smelly sock on your desk instead. You own that sock, not the president.

 

[Rallywagon]

"You know nothing, Jon Snow"

The impeachment process is not over. The current articles are sitting on Nancy's desk. The process is consummated by sending the articles to the Senate for trial.

In addition to that, the current House could delete, revise or expand the current articles. They could and probably will bring additional impeachments after the current one is completed.

Instead of citing academic support, which I am always condemned for , why don't you try some critical thought?

Look at it this way. Suppose you wanted to impregnate the president instead of impeach him. But you foolishly wear a condom and your seed goes nowhere and you lay the smelly sock on your desk instead.

Besides being quite an uncouth example, it's a completely false equivalent.

 

[Dotini]

The point is we have a great excuse to have some temporary fun at the expense of the impeachment process. IF the articles never come to the Senate, constitutional scholars will have reason to join in with opinions. But they are wisely holding their fire since it is fairly likely the articles will move at some point. Then I will change the title of the thread accordingly.

Then the Senate will hopefully address the validity of the charges. They are currently calling for Joe Biden to testify but he hints he will refuse the subpoena - the same political crime Trump is accused of in Article 2!

 

[PocketZeven]

Some do, some treat it as the disturbance to their daily routine that it is.

I mean more in the range of: I like/dislike the person and therefore predetermined my judgment.

 

[TenEightyOne]

"You know nothing, Jon Snow"

The impeachment process is not over. The current articles are sitting on Nancy's desk. The process is consummated by sending the articles to the Senate for trial.

Jon Snow is also saying the impeachment is valid, so that's another bonfire pissed on.

The process of impeachment is complete, despite you finding one lawyer who says it isn't. I'll point it out again: if that argument could hold any water the Republicans would be championing it. They're not, that really should tell you something. The process of impeachment is complete. The process of the impeachment trial, a second stage independent of impeachment, has not been begun.

The fact that the two are distinct and separate is there in black and white in the Constitution.

 

[Dotini]

Jon Snow is also saying the impeachment is valid, so that's another bonfire pissed on.

The process of impeachment is complete, despite you finding one lawyer who says it isn't. I'll point it out again: if that argument could hold any water the Republicans would be championing it. They're not, that really should tell you something. The process of impeachment is complete. The process of the impeachment trial, a second stage independent of impeachment, has not been begun.

The fact that the two are distinct and separate is there in black and white in the Constitution.

Nope. I will explain AGAIN exactly why and how you are, in my humble opinion, probably wrong.

The Republicans want a trial in order to clear their man. It is not in their interest that the articles be withheld. That's why they are not championing the nullity of the articles. Though they could do in the future. At present they cannot hold a trial because the House has failed to deliver the articles, as prescribed in the Constitution. They are alive, but just sitting on Nancy's desk.

There is no exact analogy in state or local law. But we can get very close.

Let's say a Grand Jury accuses a man of a crime. The Grand Jury, similar to the House intelligence and judiciary proceedings, denies the accused access to its proceedings, witnesses and evidence. No cross examination or exculpatory evidence can be presented. The accused has no attorney present at the Grand Jury, nor necessarily any knowledge that the Grand Jury even exists. After the Grand Jury has deliberated and turned the case over to the prosecutor (Nancy), let's say the prosecutor finds the evidence lacking, new exculpatory evidence or witnesses unwilling to come forth, and does not deliver the case to the court for the jury trial the accused has demanded to prove his innocence. In this case, the trial judge must and will drop the charges against the accused. He is free to go with his record unstained. The man has an unimpeachable record.

The difference in this impeachment case is that there is no presiding trial judge available to drop or quash the charges the prosecutor has failed to deliver to the court. In our reality the articles of impeachment will probably be delivered to the Senate and the process will continue as prescribed in the Constitution.

In the unlikely event that the articles continue to sit on Nancy's desk and no trial takes place, the question arises as to the fate of the articles. I know that the articles will remain viable for delivery to the Senate for the life of the Congress. This Congress expires next November. If they haven't been delivered by then, I expect (but don't know for sure) the articles will die with the Congress.

 

[Rallywagon]

I mean more in the range of: I like/dislike the person and therefore predetermined my judgment.

Well. Sorta. So, in a civil trial for example, 6 jurors are used. So, this case, something like 12 or 15 jurors might be called up. The defense and prosecuting lawyers then interview the pool of jurors and pick the 6 they want.
Everyone 18 and older is eligible to be a juror, and the duty is compulsory. Neither the defense nor the prosecutor actually knows any if the jurors. If they do, they are generally released from duty.

 

[baldgye]

Isn’t the changing of topic title an AUP violation (in this instance)?
@Dotini has mentioned more than once that he changed it for fun, but then also seems to be using it as a vehicle to reframe the discussion away from the actual topic and more on a distorted reality that he wished was true.

 

[Touring Mars]

No.

As the thread starter, he is able (and thus entitled) to edit the title, provided the title still complies with the AUP, which it does. It is also still on topic.

 

[baldgye]

No.

As the thread starter, he is able (and thus obliged) to edit the title, provided the title still complies with the AUP, which it does. It is also still on topic.

Fair enough, though why would he be obliged to change the title to its current form, if it isn’t true?

 

[Touring Mars]

I meant 'entitled' not 'obliged' - but either way, it is still fine... there are legitimate questions as to how the impeachment process is being conducted.

 

[baldgye]

...there are legitimate questions as to how the impeachment process is being conducted.

But not that it hasn’t happened... he’s been impeached, he always for ever have that against him, regardless of what it will achieve and if it’ll have any impact on his re-election.

 

[Touring Mars]

@Dotini’s thread title could be construed as inaccurate or wrong if he had not included the question mark - but the fact is that there is a question mark over the impeachment process for the reasons that Dotini has noted in the thread. Either way, the questioning nature of the thread title renders it perfectly acceptable - if anything, it is actually a more accurate representation of the actual situation than anything else. Note that the original thread title ‘The Impeachment of Donald Trump’ was a reference to the process, and not a statement of fact - the same can still be said of the current title.

 

[TenEightyOne]

There is no exact analogy in state or local law. But we can get very close.

Close, but no cigar.

 

[Scaff]

No cross examination or exculpatory evidence can be presented. The accused has no attorney present at the Grand Jury, nor necessarily any knowledge that the Grand Jury even exists.

None of this is even remotely true to what happened., as such as an analogy it falls over.

 

[UKMikey]

@Dotini’s thread title could be construed as inaccurate or wrong if he had not included the question mark - but the fact is that there is a question mark over the impeachment process for the reasons that Dotini has noted in the thread. Either way, the questioning nature of the thread title renders it perfectly acceptable - if anything, it is actually a more accurate representation of the actual situation than anything else. Note that the original thread title ‘The Impeachment of Donald Trump’ was a reference to the process, and not a statement of fact - the same can still be said of the current title.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines#Question_headlines

 

[PocketZeven]

Well. Sorta. So, in a civil trial for example, 6 jurors are used. So, this case, something like 12 or 15 jurors might be called up. The defense and prosecuting lawyers then interview the pool of jurors and pick the 6 they want.
Everyone 18 and older is eligible to be a juror, and the duty is compulsory. Neither the defense nor the prosecutor actually knows any if the jurors. If they do, they are generally released from duty.

In the case of the senate trial, can’t the “biased” republicans who already indicated they are coordinating with the accused be excluded from the trial? It is in violation of their oath I think?

 

[Dotini]

Probably the main reason the articles of impeachment are being withheld from going forward is the problem of Joe Biden (and the whistleblower) being subpoenaed to testify at the trial. This could be a real disaster for Joe, as it could easily torpedo and sink his presidential campaign, in which he is currently easily polling as the favorite. This hypothesis leads to two predictions: a near immediate 2nd impeachment of Trump while the 1st treads water, and the resurrection of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Party's most viable chance of election victory come November.

 

[PocketZeven]

Probably the main reason the articles of impeachment are being withheld from going forward is the problem of Joe Biden (and the whistleblower) being subpoenaed to testify at the trial. This could be a real disaster for Joe, as it could easily torpedo and sink his presidential campaign, in which he is currently easily polling as the favorite. This hypothesis leads to two predictions: a near immediate 2nd impeachment of Trump while the 1st treads water, and the resurrection of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Party's most viable chance of election victory come November.

That is kinda going into conspiracy theory territory. Do you really think that is the main reason? Not that the republican majority have said they are coordinating with the accused and will refuse to call any witnesses and making the impeachment process a sham being the main reason?

Pro trump people always seem to find a way to think of a way to involve Hillary and that she is all behind it. To me it seems far fetched.

 

[Touring Mars]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines#Question_headlines

I don’t disagree with that, but the fact remains that Dotini can change the title of the thread to whatever he wants so long as it remains a fair reflection of the content of the thread.

I could, if I wanted to, take exception to the thread title of ‘Creation v Evolution’, which seems to imply that there is a legitimate argument as to which version of events is correct, when there isn’t. That said, that thread does contain both sides of the ‘debate’ (such as it is) and hence the title is an accurate reflection of that, even though there is in fact no question as to which side represents the truth.

 

[UKMikey]

I don’t disagree with that, but the fact remains that Dotini can change the title of the thread to whatever he wants so long as it remains a fair reflection of the content of the thread.

I could, if I wanted to, take exception to the thread title of ‘Creation v Evolution’, which seems to imply that there is a legitimate argument as to which version of events is correct, when there isn’t. That said, that thread does contain both sides of the ‘debate’ (such as it is) and hence the title is an accurate reflection of that, even though there is in fact no question as to which side represents the truth.

Of course he can. I'm just illustrating that it's a well-used tactic.

 

[Dotini]

Do you really think that is the main reason?

Yes, that is what I think, for the reasons given. However, the ostensible reason given by the Democratic leadership is that they want certain other Republican figures called to testify to augment their case for conviction. Democrats have also called for the immediate resignation of Trump, Barr, Durham, Miller, McConnel and Pompeo for conflicts of interest. All of these escalating demands and requests for the opposing parties to commit public suicide are very unlikely to be met. For the totality of all these reasons, it seems reasonable to think the process is quite firmly stalled. Look for a 2nd impeachment to be ginned up in a few weeks.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yes, that is what I think, for the reasons given. However, the ostensible reason given by the Democratic leadership is that they want certain other Republican figures called to testify to augment their case for conviction. Democrats have also called for the immediate resignation of Trump, Barr, Durham, Miller, McConnel and Pompeo for conflicts of interest. All of these escalating demands and requests for the opposing parties to commit public suicide are very unlikely to be met. For the totality of all these reasons, it seems reasonable to think the process is quite firmly stalled. Look for a 2nd impeachment to be ginned up in a few weeks.

To be fair these demands are only escalating, because of Trump himself. Not because of the Dems. It sounds like the same narrative that the dems are guilty of a sham impeachment and Trump did nothing wrong to be impeached. To be clear, trump can only blame himself for being impeached.

new evidence show that 90 minutes after trumps phonecall. The aid for Ukraine was directed to be withheld from release against objections of career officials. That undercuts the whole narrative that it was a “perfect” phonecall and there was no quid pro quo or bribery.

 

[Biggles]

There is no exact analogy in state or local law. But we can get very close.

Let's say a Grand Jury accuses a man of a crime. The Grand Jury, similar to the House intelligence and judiciary proceedings, denies the accused access to its proceedings, witnesses and evidence. No cross examination or exculpatory evidence can be presented. The accused has no attorney present at the Grand Jury, nor necessarily any knowledge that the Grand Jury even exists. After the Grand Jury has deliberated and turned the case over to the prosecutor (Nancy), let's say the prosecutor finds the evidence lacking, new exculpatory evidence or witnesses unwilling to come forth, and does not deliver the case to the court for the jury trial the accused has demanded to prove his innocence. In this case, the trial judge must and will drop the charges against the accused. He is free to go with his record unstained. The man has an unimpeachable record.

The difference in this impeachment case is that there is no presiding trial judge available to drop or quash the charges the prosecutor has failed to deliver to the court. In our reality the articles of impeachment will probably be delivered to the Senate and the process will continue as prescribed in the Constitution.

It would be a weird jury trial indeed if prior to the trial several of the jurors came out & announced that they had no interest in hearing any of the evidence & they had already decided the outcome.

 

[Dotini]

It would be a weird jury trial indeed if prior to the trial several of the jurors came out & announced that they had no interest in hearing any of the evidence & they had already decided the outcome.

Yes. But that is another key difference to the legal system analogy - with impeachment it is not a legal process but a political process. And it is made infinitely worse from the fact that it is so blatantly partisan and blatantly abusive of the common interest. IF there is a trial in the Senate, I would hope that the Republicans would mount the most vigorous and rigorous case possible in defense of the president. Require Biden, the whistleblower, Mulvaney, Bolton and everyone else to testify under oath and cross examination under penalty of imprisonment for lying. For the love of the Republic this impeachment must be rescued and elevated from the revolting mess it's in. Now, only the Senate can do that. But first the House must finish its duty to deliver the articles.

 

[Rallywagon]

In the case of the senate trial, can’t the “biased” republicans who already indicated they are coordinating with the accused be excluded from the trial? It is in violation of their oath I think?

Unfortunately, the senate is not a jury panel. They are the senate. Though it does appear they want to play as the judge and the defense team. But no, sadly, they cant just be removed. They would need to be impeached, and given how the senate is stacked, it's highly unlikely McConnell or any of the other oath breakers siding with Trump over their obligated duties would be impeached by their chamber.
That said, while do do feel that the main reason for withholding handing the papers over to the senate is the clear bias being shown (ffs some of you guys dig the hole you are sticking your head in deep. Trump and his team literally admit to quid pro quo, you say they didnt, McConnell literally says he's going to work closely with the executive branch and you think that somehow means the impeachment will be fair and unbiased? That is all pure self indulgent ignorance at its finest.) But, it would be fairly blind to think that the democrats are not also working to save their own. Biden and his son could equally be in some heat, and I think a proper investigation into what Hunter was up to and how his father has been involved (to include the Ukraine and also Hunters drug use and subsequent cover ups) is also due. But, that is a separate issue that should be handled away from the Trump impeachment and in no way exonerates Trump.
That being said, I think it important to note that not everyone in the Republican party is a Trump crony. Romney, Cruz and a fair number of other moderate Republicans want to see witnesses called, want the subpoenas executed and followed and are crying foul at McConnells statements of working with the Trump administration. It's just unfortunate that the Senate and the RNC is headed by Trump cronies.

 

[Rallywagon]

Yes. But that is another key difference to the legal system analogy - with impeachment it is not a legal process but a political process. And it is made infinitely worse from the fact that it is so blatantly partisan and blatantly abusive of the common interest. IF there is a trial in the Senate, I would hope that the Republicans would mount the most vigorous and rigorous case possible in defense of the president. Require Biden, the whistleblower, Mulvaney, Bolton and everyone else to testify under oath and cross examination under penalty of imprisonment for lying. For the love of the Republic this impeachment must be rescued and elevated from the revolting mess it's in. Now, only the Senate can do that. But first the House must finish its duty to deliver the articles.

Why does Biden need to be examined in Trumps impeachment exactly? What does Biden have to do with what Trump did?