Senate Trump Trial

[screen glare]

Wouldn’t it be great if - after whatever pomp opens the trial - chief Justice Roberts made a ruling stating he is there to ensure the proceedings are fair. Then said - “Thus, McConnell - having announced on viral video weeks ago that you will align yourself with The White House during this trial - coordinating all that’s done here with President Trump (the guy on trial!) and stating the president will not be removed - I order you to recuse yourself from these proceedings. Because you have decided to be unfair. And that goes against our US Constitution, and the special pre-trial oath you’ve taken.”

[Matt]

Wouldn’t it be great if - after whatever pomp opens the trial - chief Justice Roberts made a ruling stating he is there to ensure the proceedings are fair. Then said - “Thus, McConnell - having announced on viral video weeks ago that you will align yourself with The White House during this trial - coordinating all that’s done here with President Trump (the guy on trial!) and stating the president will not be removed - I order you to recuse yourself from these proceedings. Because you have decided to be unfair. And that goes against our US Constitution, and the special pre-trial oath you’ve taken.”

Seek mental help. This is a bullshit impeachment that never should have happened. The concept of fairness went out the window months ago.

[audiophile]

Where's the beef, er real crime? The Democrats want a prime minister, not a president.

[Rate This]

Where's the beef, er real crime? The Democrats want a prime minister, not a president.

This isn’t a criminal trial... a crime isn’t required...

[Rate This]

Wouldn’t it be great if - after whatever pomp opens the trial - chief Justice Roberts made a ruling stating he is there to ensure the proceedings are fair. Then said - “Thus, McConnell - having announced on viral video weeks ago that you will align yourself with The White House during this trial - coordinating all that’s done here with President Trump (the guy on trial!) and stating the president will not be removed - I order you to recuse yourself from these proceedings. Because you have decided to be unfair. And that goes against our US Constitution, and the special pre-trial oath you’ve taken.”

Seek mental help. This is a bullshit impeachment that never should have happened. The concept of fairness went out the window months ago.

Was that when Trump refused to participate?

[Bryce]

Wouldn’t it be great if - after whatever pomp opens the trial - chief Justice Roberts made a ruling stating he is there to ensure the proceedings are fair. Then said - “Thus, McConnell - having announced on viral video weeks ago that you will align yourself with The White House during this trial - coordinating all that’s done here with President Trump (the guy on trial!) and stating the president will not be removed - I order you to recuse yourself from these proceedings. Because you have decided to be unfair. And that goes against our US Constitution, and the special pre-trial oath you’ve taken.”

If he did do that, which he wont, he would then have to recuse Booker, Harris, Hirono, Warren and Sanders for comments they have made as to his guilt.

[Rate This]

Wouldn’t it be great if - after whatever pomp opens the trial - chief Justice Roberts made a ruling stating he is there to ensure the proceedings are fair. Then said - “Thus, McConnell - having announced on viral video weeks ago that you will align yourself with The White House during this trial - coordinating all that’s done here with President Trump (the guy on trial!) and stating the president will not be removed - I order you to recuse yourself from these proceedings. Because you have decided to be unfair. And that goes against our US Constitution, and the special pre-trial oath you’ve taken.”

If he did do that, which he wont, he would then have to recuse Booker, Harris, Hirono, Warren and Sanders for comments they have made as to his guilt.

Probably so... but this also further demonstrates how much of a political act this is... we use legal words with it but it’s not really legal at all except for “do we remove or not”.... that’s the only question and the only possible outcomes...

[Bryce]

Where's the beef, er real crime? The Democrats want a prime minister, not a president.

This isn’t a criminal trial... a crime isn’t required...

Horseshit...

The COTUS is pretty clear on this.

Article II section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Yes, a crime is required. Unless of course the Democrats suspend the Constitution again.

[Rate This]

Where's the beef, er real crime? The Democrats want a prime minister, not a president.

This isn’t a criminal trial... a crime isn’t required...

Horseshit...

The COTUS is pretty clear on this.

Article II section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Yes, a crime is required. Unless of course the Democrats suspend the Constitution again.

No... high crimes and misdemeanors is pretty undefined... in other words it’s whatever a majority of the house thinks it is.... there is no specific list of high crimes and misdemeanors that qualify. So the two that were brought up as charges and the house approved certainly qualify. Nobody cares if they are on the books of the United States Code or something... that is irrelevant. Sadly the constitution is littered with language that acts like this... it’s really not all that well written and defined vis-a-vis the amount of guidance we need to understand basic sentences today.

But again this is a political act and not a legal one. Trump can’t be hanged, or go to jail or be castrated as a result... just be removed. That’s the one and only penalty.

It pretty clearly defines impeachment and conviction as two separate steps as well, I remember you guys having a debate awhile back about whether he’d been impeached... according to the COTUS he has...

If you feel like reading about the real meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors and how it’s actually a really broad term that goes back to the 1300’s and has never referred to just actual crimes here ya go:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... an/600343/

Here’s one from the Constitutional Rights Foundation:
https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/hig ... anors.html

There are several others like this and legal scholars are all on the same page on this. It’s just a common misconception. High crimes and misdemeanors doesn’t just mean crimes.

[Bryce]

No... high crimes and misdemeanors is pretty undefined... in other words it’s whatever a majority of the house thinks it is.... there is no specific list of high crimes and misdemeanors that qualify. So the two that were brought up as charges and the house approved certainly qualify.

So what you're saying is that whichever political party holds a secure majority in the House can impeach a President for whatever reason they want? Sort of like a vote of "No Confidence" in the British Parliament?

Alexander Hamilton warned of this...

“The prosecution of [such offenses] will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties, more or less friendly, or inimical, to the accused. In many cases, it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side, or on the other; and in such cases, there will always be the greater danger, that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

[Rate This]

No... high crimes and misdemeanors is pretty undefined... in other words it’s whatever a majority of the house thinks it is.... there is no specific list of high crimes and misdemeanors that qualify. So the two that were brought up as charges and the house approved certainly qualify.

So what you're saying is that whichever political party holds a secure majority in the House can impeach a President for whatever reason they want? Sort of like a vote of "No Confidence" in the British Parliament?

Alexander Hamilton warned of this...

“The prosecution of [such offenses] will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties, more or less friendly, or inimical, to the accused. In many cases, it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side, or on the other; and in such cases, there will always be the greater danger, that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

For better or worse that’s what high crimes and misdemeanors amounts to in the context at the time the constitution was written. It’s a political act. It always has been. Statutory crimes have nothing to do with it. But it is a seriously used political act and it’s being used seriously here as well.

The founding fathers could be a bit naive at times for lack of a better term... that quote is yet another example. That kind of pie in the sky talk went out the window the moment a political party appeared which was pretty darn quick.

You may be willing to second their words behind only Jesus.. I’m gonna be realistic and say that there were some serious flaws in their logic and some serious naïveté mixed in there too... only a complete rube couldn’t see political parties and factions as an inevitability... some of the founders legitimately thought there wouldn’t be any at all(!) How Naive can one get?

[audiophile]

Where's the beef, er real crime? The Democrats want a prime minister, not a president.

This isn’t a criminal trial... a crime isn’t required...

I don't read it that way. If the House didn't send one of these it should thrown out by Senate:


"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

[Deleted User 12047]

But didn’t a law get broken, according to the GAO?

[Rate This]

Where's the beef, er real crime? The Democrats want a prime minister, not a president.

This isn’t a criminal trial... a crime isn’t required...

I don't read it that way. If the House didn't send one of these it should thrown out by Senate:


"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

They sent “other high crimes and misdemeanors” which don’t have to be statutory at all despite the name. Read the two links I posted above and you’ll see the roots of the phrase in English common law.

[Rate This]

But didn’t a law get broken, according to the GAO?

Yes but that came out after the articles were put together but it’s part of what the Democrats want to add to it along with Bolton and Mulvaney testifying among other things.