Jump to content


The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm not a constitutional expert by any stretch.  But, let me explain it this way.

 

 

 

 

This is very similar. The house, in essence, is the grand jury.  The Senate is the open court case to decide guilty or not guilty.

But the senate is not doing that. If you go by some of the statements from Senators, they are ignoring the whole guilty vs not guilty question.   
 

Some, like Lamar Alexander have essentially said he’s guilty, but the “crime “ doesn’t fit the punishment of removal so they will vote to acquit.  

 

Acquit should mean “not guilty “ and I know Trump will view it that way, but in the interpretation of many senators (at least some  who have the courage to talk) acquittal essentially means, Yeah he’s guilty, but removal is not warranted—so he’s Not guilty.  

Link to comment

6 minutes ago, Decoy73 said:

But the senate is not doing that. If you go by some of the statements from Senators, they are ignoring the whole guilty vs not guilty question.   
 

Some, like Lamar Alexander have essentially said he’s guilty, but the “crime “ doesn’t fit the punishment of removal so they will vote to acquit.  

 

Acquit should mean “not guilty “ and I know Trump will view it that way, but in the interpretation of many senators (at least some  who have the courage to talk) acquittal essentially means, Yeah he’s guilty, but removal is not warranted—so he’s Not guilty.  

Well, I can't explain why many Senators have refused to carry out their duties on this.  They took an oath that they would be impartial jurors.  They were saying even before taking the oath that they already had their minds made up that Trump is innocent and that they would do anything they can to get the trial over with and dropped.  It's clear that some actually at least understand that the evidence is pretty overwhelming...but still are devoted to keep him in office.

 

Maybe what they should do for situations like this is use the Senate as the jury pool.  They then go through a juror selection process like any other trial and middle 100 Senators down to 20.  Both sides get a chance to eliminate certain ones.  It ends up being a jury of 10 Dems and 10 Repubs.  

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Decoy73 said:

Attention all Constitution experts.
 

 I have to get your take on something that’s probably splitting hairs, but bugs me nonetheless.  
If the House has sole power of impeachment, doesn’t the fact that when Senator’s stating that their duty is to determine if the allegations are”impeachable “ essentially diminish the power of impeachment from the house?  

 

In other words, they are not really “jurors “ if all they do is reaffirm or in this case disaffirm the House’s decision.  

 

Jurors hear the case, consider the evidence and then decide if guilty or not guilty. As opposed to whether the crime fits the punishment.  

 

I get that with impeachment there are numerous dissimilarities from a traditional criminal trial, but I feel the term “juror “ is misused here.  This, plus anytime a senator or anyone says what Trump did was not impeachable, they are undeniably wrong.  Only the House can impeach and impeached he was.  

 

the Senate is the judge and the jury, thus they rule on all the things like witnesses, evidence, 'what is a oHCOM?' etc that the black robe would do at the trial.  The Chief Judge presides over the Impeachment of a POTUS; but he's judging over the Rules of the Senate not Constitutional law.  Every so often someone suggested the Chief should rule on legal questions the Senate disagreed over.  The answer was always NO, the Senate has to do its job. And by tomorrow they will have done.

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment

I wish people would start using the correct terminology.  This is not "Impeachment day".  He has already been impeached.  He will always be a President that got impeached.

 

What the Senate is voting on is if he is convicted of what he is impeached for.

 

He's going to tweet out this afternoon that he "was never impeached".  That would be a lie.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

If the house impeaches again, it damn well better be so iron clad that House Republicans have no chance of weaseling out of it.  If not, the Dems will get demolished in November.

with a bought jury there is no iron clad case possible.   heck....several republicans admit that trump did this...but they say it's not an impeachable offense.   they will never impeach for obstruction because they are part of the obstruction.   only way he will be removed from office is if he is voted out or if the dems win 2/3 of the senate.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

If the house impeaches again, it damn well better be so iron clad that House Republicans have no chance of weaseling out of it.  If not, the Dems will get demolished in November.

How does laundering money for the russian mob sound? It will be the financials and or a sweeping impeachment including that, mueller stuff and a whole host of other offenses. There was some big news that went unnoticed a few days ago about a secret Trump meeting with Saudi Crown prince prior to the election that was found in Kushners interview with Muellers team. There is alot of angles they could take realistically. 

 

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, commando said:

with a bought jury there is no iron clad case possible.   heck....several republicans admit that trump did this...but they say it's not an impeachable offense.   they will never impeach for obstruction because they are part of the obstruction.   only way he will be removed from office is if he is voted out or if the dems win 2/3 of the senate.

It would need to be something that is unquestionably bad enough they couldn't look the other way.

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

It would need to be something that is unquestionably bad enough they couldn't look the other way.

 

Bribing a foreign country with taxpayer money to target a political opponent and cheat in the upcoming election wasn't enough for Republicans, yet they admitted it happened and it was wrong. Honestly, what would be!?! That is a great question for our press to raise.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

How does laundering money for the russian mob sound? It will be the financials and or a sweeping impeachment including that, mueller stuff and a whole host of other offenses. There was some big news that went unnoticed a few days ago about a secret Trump meeting with Saudi Crown prince prior to the election that was found in Kushners interview with Muellers team. There is alot of angles they could take realistically. 

 

 

 

Sure, as long as there is financials, paper trail and eye witnesses that Trump can't silence.  Look, people like Jim Jordan and Ted Cruz will defend Trump till death.  But, I believe that if iron clad evidence (not just hearsay or second hand people saying stuff) such as an actual paper trail of banking documents and TAX RETURNS...etc.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...