The Trump Impeachment Thread

[TenEightyOne]

This is not a trial to determine guilt or innocence. This is not a trial in which the evidence is heard.

The evidence was supposed to have been presented in the impeachment. The trial is supposed to decide upon removal from office. This whole thing has nothing whatever to do with law or justice. It is strictly a unique constitutional political process.

Well, that seems an unusual and unprecedented take on the process.

 

[DesertPenguin]

As far as I can tell, the impeachment hearings are used to determine the crime, using words and discussions. Then the trial does the same thing but with evidence, witnesses, etc.?

 

[Dotini]

Well, that seems an unusual and unprecedented take on the process.

It might seem that way if you are thinking in conventional terms that should apply to the 7.8 billion normal citizens on Earth. who occasional **** up or commit misdeeds. But no! What we have here applies to only one person on the planet - a bespoke process applying only to the sitting US president.

If you are talking and posting about truth, law, or justice, you are really badly off-topic here.

 

[TexRex]

This is not a trial to determine guilt or innocence. This is not a trial in which the evidence is heard.

The evidence was supposed to have been presented in the impeachment. The trial is supposed to decide upon removal from office. This whole thing has nothing whatever to do with law or justice. It is strictly a unique constitutional political process.

Sen. Susan Collins, R - Maine, 1999: "I am willing to travel the road wherever it leads, whether it's to the conviction or the acquittal of the president, but in order to do that, I need more evidence. I need witnesses and further evidence to guide me to the right destination; to get to the truth. Yesterday, the president's attorney, David Kendall, referred to the mountain of evidence in this case, and there is indeed a mountain of evidence. But there is also a record that is replete with conflicting statements, with significant gaps and with unanswered questions. We need to answer those questions in order to fulfill our duty to do impartial justice. I want to be fair to the president, I want to give him the opportunity to have his lawyers question witnesses, if, in fact, we get to that stage."

Just admit it, Dotini, you don't want YOUR GUY held accountable. Enough with this nonsense. Just stop.

You have absolutely no basis for these arbitrary rules you've established in an effort to show that the process against your guy is inappropriate.

 

[Dotini]

Sen. Susan Collins, R - Maine, 1999: "I am willing to travel the road wherever it leads, whether it's to the conviction or the acquittal of the president, but in order to do that, I need more evidence. I need witnesses and further evidence to guide me to the right destination; to get to the truth. Yesterday, the president's attorney, David Kendall, referred to the mountain of evidence in this case, and there is indeed a mountain of evidence. But there is also a record that is replete with conflicting statements, with significant gaps and with unanswered questions. We need to answer those questions in order to fulfill our duty to do impartial justice. I want to be fair to the president, I want to give him the opportunity to have his lawyers question witnesses, if, in fact, we get to that stage."


Just admit it, Dotini, you don't want YOUR GUY held accountable. Enough with this nonsense. Just stop.

You have absolutely no basis for these arbitrary rules you've established in an effort to show that the process against your guy is inappropriate.

No. Collins is in a vulnerable position of seeking reelection with her unique constituency.

 

[TexRex]

No. Collins is in a vulnerable position of seeking reelection with her unique constituency.

JUST STOP!!! Your obscurantist nonsense is ridiculous.

 

[Dotini]

JUST STOP!!! Your obscurantist nonsense is ridiculous.

No. I provide the blessings of reason and perspective to a poorly understood process.

 

[TexRex]

No. I provide the blessings of reason and perspective to a poorly understood process.

Bull****. You obfuscate and deflect. Even just now, rather than address Collins' calls for additional evidence during the trial of Clinton, you addressed Collins herself. You couldn't argue with the remarks so you attacked the individual.

 

[Famine]

No. I provide the blessings of reason and perspective to a poorly understood process.

Or rather obfuscation.

The impeachment process is similar to the decision of the CPS or state attorney general of whether there is enough evidence to secure a conviction in a trial. The trial itself is a jury trial-style trial requiring a two-thirds supermajority to convict. More evidence can be heard in the trial - and indeed already has been in the memorandum released on January 18th.

 

[Dotini]

Here is simple multiple choice question:

The purpose of the trial phase of the US impeachment process is to:
A) Determine guilt or innocence.
B) Decide the question of removal from office.

 

[PocketZeven]

If Trump does not get removed by vote of the senate is voted innocent, but new evidence comes a light, can he be tried again in the senate for the same articles?

 

[Dotini]

If Trump does not get removed by vote of the senate is voted innocent, but new evidence comes a light, can he be tried again in the senate for the same articles?

There will be no choice of guilt or innocence. The choices are acquittal or removal.
In the case the prez is acquitted, the House can undertake a new impeachment. It can do an unlimited number of impeachments as long as the Congress is in existence and president is in office.
After that, he can be prosecuted in the court system like any other citizen.

 

[PocketZeven]

In the case the prez is acquitted, the House can undertake a new impeachment. It can do an unlimited number of impeachments as long as the Congress is in existence and president is in office.
After that, he can be prosecuted in the court system like any other citizen.

So congress can still continue to try enforcing the subpoenas for evidence and witnesses through the courts? Even after he is acquitted?

 

[Dotini]

So congress can still continue to try enforcing the subpoenas for evidence and witnesses through the courts? Even after he is acquitted?

Excellent question! I think the answer is yes, though new subpoenas may need to be issued.

 

[DesertPenguin]

So congress can still continue to try enforcing the subpoenas for evidence and witnesses through the courts? Even after he is acquitted?

Excellent question! I think the answer is yes, though new subpoenas may need to be issued.

 

[PocketZeven]

Excellent question! I think the answer is yes, though new subpoenas may need to be issued.

I was against impeachment from the beginning. I think it is far more important to find out the truth and facts. I always preferred him going jail as a private citizen. I dont care if it is after 2020 or 2024. He should not get any chance to be pardoned.

I am confused!?!

 

[Dotini]

@DesertPenguin
The House had the chance to pursue evidence and witnesses through the courts, but elected not to do so. The issue to be settled is Executive Privilege.

I was against impeachment from the beginning. I think it is far more important to find out the truth and facts. I always preferred him going jail as a private citizen. I dont care if it is after 2020 or 2024. He should not get any chance to be pardoned.

Agreed. And pardoning is a two-edged sword. In order to be pardoned, the recipient must acknowledge guilt.

 

[PocketZeven]

@DesertPenguin
The House had the chance to pursue evidence and witnesses through the courts, but elected not to do so. The issue to be settled is Executive Privilege.



Agreed. And pardoning is a two-edged sword. In order to be pardoned, the recipient must acknowledge guilt.

Yes I know. I was against impeaching, because if the accused is guilty and removed. Pence would pardon any criminal charges. Trump would again not be held accountable for his corrupt acts.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@DesertPenguin
The House had the chance to pursue evidence and witnesses through the courts, but elected not to do so.

There's no need when the precedent differs from that, why decide this new way?

pardoning is a two-edged sword. In order to be pardoned, the recipient must acknowledge guilt.

Utterly, demonstrably incorrect.

 

[APC900]

I guess I am too simple of an individual because in my eyes, there is guilt or innocence. A person is either right or wrong.
I don't get this idea of not hearing evidence.
That action immediately raises red flags.
If the crime was not committed, there should not be fear of hearing and then confronting witness testimony.

 

[Dotini]

Utterly, demonstrably incorrect.

From Wikipedia:

A federal pardon in the United States is the action of the President of the United States that completely sets aside the punishment for a federal crime. The authority to take such action is granted to the president by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Under the Constitution, the president's clemency power extends to federal criminal offenses.[1] All requests for executive clemency for federal offenses are directed to the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice for investigation and review. The beneficiary of a pardon needs to accept the pardon.[2] The Supreme Court stated in Burdick v. United States that a pardon carries an "imputation of guilt," and acceptance of a pardon is a confession to such guilt. [3]

 

[Famine]

Here is simple multiple choice question:

The purpose of the trial phase of the US impeachment process is to:
A) Determine guilt or innocence.
B) Decide the question of removal from office.

Both.

Your options are not mutually exclusive. In fact they're cause and effect. On the other hand here is a simple multiple choice question that isn't weighted. Is the trial of impeachment:
A - A trial in which additional evidence is heard; or
B

not a trial in which the evidence is heard

Bear in mind when answering that in the opening memorandum of the trial there was additional evidence that was not part of the impeachment process.

 

[Dotini]

In the present impeachment trial, evidence readily agreed to by both sides was stipulated in the opening memorandum.

The question of additional evidence and witnesses is an issue which has not yet been decided. It could go either way. Under negotiation is sworn testimony by the Bidens, Bolton and a handful of other characters.

 

[Famine]

In the present impeachment trial, evidence readily agreed to by both sides was stipulated in the opening memorandum.

... which is part of the trial of impeachment and after the impeachment itself.

Thus it is a trial in which the evidence is heard.

 

[Dotini]

... which is part of the trial of impeachment and after the impeachment itself.

Thus it is a trial in which the evidence is heard.

Okay. You are correct. My point was that any new or additional evidence and witnesses (not stipulated in the opening memorandum) are not inherently the duty of the Senate. They may be negotiated. The main purpose of the trial is for the Senate to consider the evidence developed in the impeachment phase, then vote either for acquittal or removal.

In a normal, terrestrial trial in a court of law, evidence and witnesses are the heart and soul. In presidential impeachment trial in the US, evidence and witnesses are normally heard in the impeachment phase.

 

[Biggles]

But I don't expect many of you leftists to watch at all. You have to protect your narrative bubble.

This has got to be the most weirdly delusional attitude exhibited by Trumpists. "Leftists"? You don't have to be a leftist to oppose what Trump is doing. You could be a religious conservative opposed to his history of philandering, cheating & lying. You could be a fiscal conservative opposed to his running up the deficit in a time of economic growth. You could be a defence conservative opposed to him undermining decades long alliances between European allies. You could be a libertarian opposed to his meddling with the mechanisms of free trade. Or you could be the prior GOP nominee for President:

"Here's what I know: Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud," Romney said. "His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat," he said, taking a shot at Trump's trademark truck driver-style baseball hats. "There is plenty of evidence that Mr. Trump is a con man, a fake," he said. "Mr. Trump has changed his positions not just over the years, but over the course of the campaign."

The narrative bubble is your own.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In order to be pardoned, the recipient must acknowledge guilt.

Utterly, demonstrably incorrect. Firstly; imputation is not acceptance, it's a presumption of guilt by the court, not an acceptance of guilt. Secondly the imputation occurs simultaneously as part of the pardon, your sentence suggested that the recipient must acknowledge guilt in order to receive a pardon.

 

[TexRex]

In presidential impeachment trial in the US, evidence and witnesses are normally heard in the impeachment phase.

Three; there have been three presidential impeachment trials in the United States. "Normal" has not been established in such a small sample pool.

 

[Dotini]

Utterly, demonstrably incorrect. Firstly; imputation is not acceptance, it's a presumption of guilt by the court, not an acceptance of guilt. Secondly the imputation occurs simultaneously as part of the pardon, your sentence suggested that the recipient must acknowledge guilt in order to receive a pardon.

How is that different from this?:

A federal pardon in the United States is the action of the President of the United States that completely sets aside the punishment for a federal crime. The authority to take such action is granted to the president by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Under the Constitution, the president's clemency power extends to federal criminal offenses.[1] All requests for executive clemency for federal offenses are directed to the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice for investigation and review. The beneficiary of a pardon needs to accept the pardon.[2] The Supreme Court stated in Burdick v. United States that a pardon carries an "imputation of guilt," and acceptance of a pardon is a confession to such guilt. [3]

Edit:
It is true a man could be pardoned and not admit guilt. But in such a case, the pardon is declined by the recipient. It the man accepts the pardon, he has tacitly admitted or acknowledged guilt.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

How is that different from this?:

A federal pardon in the United States is the action of the President of the United States that completely sets aside the punishment for a federal crime. The authority to take such action is granted to the president by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Under the Constitution, the president's clemency power extends to federal criminal offenses.[1] All requests for executive clemency for federal offenses are directed to the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice for investigation and review. The beneficiary of a pardon needs to accept the pardon.[2] The Supreme Court stated in Burdick v. United States that a pardon carries an "imputation of guilt," and acceptance of a pardon is a confession to such guilt. [3]

Edit:
It is true a man could be pardoned and not admit guilt. But in such a case, the pardon is declined by the recipient. It the man accepts the pardon, he has tacitly admitted or acknowledged guilt.

I am pretty sure President Ford pardoned Nixon. Nixon was never convicted of anything. Sort of a preemptive pardon.