Jump to content
knapplc

The First Trump Impeachment Thread

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Lamar was hailed as a rock star that year, the hype just didn't translate into a lot of NH votes. Maybe the DS are more prone to be swept off their feet by the exciting candidate.

 

The only thing that needs taken down is the Iowa Caucus Cluster

 

Are you actually doubling down? Have you ever been to a rock concert? 

 

You have yet to cite the slightest similarity between Lamar Alexander and Bernie Sanders. 

 

The moderate Republican with the third place finishes and early primary exit, versus the populist firebrand filling arenas for the second straight election? 

 

You might be able to make a case for Pat Buchanan that same 1996 election. He caught a little fire and hype coming in from the extremist wing, but was never a serious threat to defeat Bob Dole. 

 

I do hope you will continue to be a conservative voice on here, but let's start bringing the A game. 

Share this post


Link to post

2 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

I do hope you will continue to be a conservative Republican voice on here, but let's start bringing the A game. 

I hope he stays too....but, I needed to make this one edit.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post

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.  

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes 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.  

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

 

In many criminal cases, there is a grand jury that is brought together to decide if the person should be indicted on what they are being accused of.  Then, if they decide they should be indicted (Impeached) it then goes to a  jury trial where both sides present their cases to the judge and jury to decide guilty or not guilty.  

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

The answer was always NO, the Senate has to do its job. And by tomorrow they will have done.

:laughpound

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

So when the House impeaches again will we make another thread or just stuff it all in here? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

So when the House impeaches again will we make another thread or just stuff it all in here? 

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.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...