The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[Nanker]

8 minutes ago, Foxx said:

did the House violate the Presidents constitutional rights by not affording him the opportunity to cross examine the public testimony of 13 witnesses in the Intelligence Committee hearings?

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! A THOUSAND TIMES NO!

He's a Republican don't you know?

[snafu]

14 minutes ago, Foxx said:

did the House violate the Presidents constitutional rights by not affording him the opportunity to cross examine the public testimony of 13 witnesses in the Intelligence Committee hearings?

 

Maybe.

That’s the argument made by Cipollone in his October 8 letter.  We will never know until that’s brought to Court, which is exactly what the House Democrats refused to do.

 

[Foxx]

19 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

I don't believe so. I liken the House's role as being akin to that of a grand jury - hearings to determine if a trial is warranted. I'm not certain about specifics, but the actual trial occurs in the Senate. That's where the president would defend himself against specific charges.

i am of two minds with regard here. on the one hand, i initially thought that the entire House investigation was akin to a grand jury proceeding. on the other hand, i think it could be argued that what the House did in the bowels of Congress in the SCIF might have been construed as being the secretive grand jury proceedings, while the public portion of the House Intelligence proceedings could be construed as the actual trial proceedings. as the events played out, my impression moved to the later being the most likely.

 

as an aside, to get off on a bit of a tangent... i have since come around to thinking that the entire impeachment process is not one where there are two different proceedings, one in the House and one in the Senate. i believe, again from my impressions on what constitutional scholars have said as well as what arguments were made during the trial in the Senate, that the Constitution charges the House with the fact finding and presentation of facts that are to be presented to the Senate for deliberations of said record. i don't know that the Senate was ever intended to be part of the fact finding portion.

 

interesting questions all, to be sure.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Foxx

[Foxx]

11 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Maybe.

That’s the argument made by Cipollone in his October 8 letter.  We will never know until that’s brought to Court, which is exactly what the House Democrats refused to do.

 

we know that they violated their own rules by not allowing the minority a day of witnesses. H.R. 660 never supplanted that rule.

[3rdnlng]

8 minutes ago, Foxx said:

i am of two minds with regard here. on the one hand, i initially thought that the entire House investigation was akin to a grand jury proceeding. on the other hand, i think it could be argued that what the House did in the bowels of Congress in the SCIF might have been construed as being the secretive grand jury proceedings, while the public portion of the House Intelligence proceedings could be construed as the actual trial proceedings. as the events played out, my impression moved to the later being the most likely.

 

as an aside, to get off on a bit of a tangent... i have since come around to thinking that the entire impeachment process is not one where there are two different proceedings, one in the House and one in the Senate. i believe, again from my impressions on what constitutional scholars have said as well as what arguments were made during the trial in the Senate, that the Constitution charges the House with the fact finding and presentation of facts that are to be presented to the Senate for deliberations of said record. i don't know that the Senate was ever intended to be part of the fact finding portion.

 

interesting questions all, to be sure.

The Senate is basically the Jury and the House puts on the case. The reason the House's case was investigated in the Intelligence Committee was so that Schiff could have his secret meetings and then leak or make up what he wanted afterwards. He's very accomplished at this. They then moved the hearings to the Judicial Committee (which was televised) where they limited Republican witnesses. They then voted to impeach Trump based on nothing but speculation. Nancy proceeded to hold up sending the charges to the Senate in order to cry about the Senate Majority Leader not wanting to assist the dems in making their case for them. She also wanted to time the Senate trial to hurt the Senators campaigning in Iowa i  order to help Biden. This whole fiasco would have made an excellent Seinfeld episode. 

[Azalin]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

 

as an aside, to get off on a bit of a tangent... i have since come around to thinking that the entire impeachment process is not one where there are two different proceedings, one in the House and one in the Senate. i believe, again from my impressions on what constitutional scholars have said as well as what arguments were made during the trial in the Senate, that the Constitution charges the House with the fact finding and presentation of facts that are to be presented to the Senate for deliberations of said record. i don't know that the Senate was ever intended to be part of the fact finding portion.

 

 

I must not have been making myself clear, because this is more or less exactly how I believe it works.  

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1224038595750699009

 

[Trump_is_Mentally_fit]

7 minutes ago, Foxx said:

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1224038595750699009

 

He has already attempted to get foreign aid once to help his election, what's to stop him from again trying? 

 

 

And as an aside, the Republican senate here is handing the Executive Branch a big precedent. If trying to get foreign aid to help in an election is not an impeachable offense, then what is? Future presidents will be much more powerful (legally corrupt). 

 

Donald Trump has seriously weakened our system of checks and balances 

[CoudyBills]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

He has already attempted to get foreign aid once to help his election, what's to stop him from again trying? 

 

 

And as an aside, the Republican senate here is handing the Executive Branch a big precedent. If trying to get foreign aid to help in an election is not an impeachable offense, then what is? Future presidents will be much more powerful (legally corrupt). 

 

Donald Trump has seriously weakened our system of checks and balances 

The house needed to make an actual case.  They failed miserably.  

[Trump_is_Mentally_fit]

1 minute ago, CoudyBills said:

The house needed to make an actual case.  They failed miserably.  

Republican senator Alexander said they made their case, which they did. 

 

You guys just don't care about what he did...or that he obstructed efforts to find the whole truth 

[Foxx]

21 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

He has already attempted to get foreign aid once to help his election, what's to stop him from again trying? 

 

 

And as an aside, the Republican senate here is handing the Executive Branch a big precedent. If trying to get foreign aid to help in an election is not an impeachable offense, then what is? Future presidents will be much more powerful (legally corrupt). 

 

Donald Trump has seriously weakened our system of checks and balances 

morin' tibs. i was worried about you this past weekend. i knew the Senate's decision to send the kiddies back to the kiddie table was going to be rough on you. glad to see you didn't seppuku.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Foxx

[CoudyBills]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Republican senator Alexander said they made their case, which they did. 

 

You guys just don't care about what he did...or that he obstructed efforts to find the whole truth 

Eh, you might have a point.  Who can say really?

[B-Man]

 

 

“VINDICTIVE LOSER” IS A BAD LOOK FOR THE DEMOCRATS, BUT IT’S THE ONE THEY’VE CHOSEN SINCE NOVEMBER OF 2016: 

 

Gerhardt: The Entire White House Defense Team Will Face Bar Charges.

 

Two points: First, if this were coming from the GOP we’d hear that it was a threat to the Rule Of Law.

 

And second, if you want to delegitimize the bar associations, go right ahead. It’s fine with me, since I want the bar associations’ power reduced.

 

 

 

.

[Bob in Mich]

18 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

In your example you used bribery to make your point, which is fine - I get what you're saying. However, bribery is a crime. If Trump is actually charged with anything criminal, then not only is impeachment just, but his rights as an American citizen would afford him all the same rights that anyone else would have, one of which is his 6th amendment right to directly confront his accuser. The whistle-blower would be compelled to appear at the trial.

 

Whether being tried in the senate or in criminal court, all American citizens are entitled to their constitutional rights, be they president, regular schmoe, and everything in between.

 

The fact that there have been no criminal charges against Trump is proof that the impeachment vote in the House was 100% purely political. I'd wager that many, if not most right-leaning posters here will admit that the Clinton impeachment was BS ( in that it began with Whitewater and went on and on until they finally caught him lying to a grand jury under oath in a sexual harassment case ), but at least with Clinton they actually had him dead to rights on a legitimate criminal charge. Not so with Trump.

 

I believe one mistake that's being made is the assumption on the part of anti-Trumpers that opposition to this impeachment is due to a cult-like devotion to this president. Speaking for myself ( and likely more than a few others ), my opposition to impeachment is like Harry Reid did when he did away with the filibuster, House democrats have lowered the bar for impeachment and have set a precedent for weaponizing the entire process.

 

Who wins in a situation like that?

 

Some of this was discussed by now I guess but a few points.....

Abuse of Power is a super valid reason to impeach, as far as I know.  It has been used before, if I recall.  There is no requirement that says impeachment must contain a judicial law crime.

 

Regarding the' face the accuser' question, there are two different 'trials'.  One in the senate and if impeached and removed, possibly followed by the judicial trial if criminal offense was involved.   My point about possibly using the other House witnesses was that there are now a lot of accusers.  Is there any requirement that the FIRST accuser be involved?  I don't know.  Maybe someone does.

 

Your point about no criminal charges being The proof of political House proceedings does not really follow.  That logic seems flawed to me.  There are reasons to impeach that involve behavior we can not tolerate in the President that is not strictly criminal.  Say he starts downing a quart of vodka with breakfast every day and cannot be counted on to be sober or conscious, ever.  IDK, just off the top of the head but that seems intolerable and non criminal.

 

 

[CoudyBills]

I'm so excited.  Already talk of impeaching Joe should he win.  Can't wait.  Make ***** sandwich, eat ***** sandwich.  

[B-Man]

 

 

LIVE: Trump’s Team, House Managers Give Final Closing Arguments Followed by Floor Speeches

 

Then the senators will have about 10 minutes for floor speeches, which will last until Wednesday afternoon.

 

 

President Donald Trump’s defense team and House managers will give their closing arguments on the Senate floor for the impeachment trial.

It starts at 11 a.m. ET and will last four hours. Senators will then have an opportunity to speak on the floor on why or why not the chamber should convict Trump.

 

 

.

[Bob in Mich]

On 2/2/2020 at 10:30 AM, Rob's House said:

 

I actually did break down in detail why the "increased danger" argument is baseless. You haven't given any reason why you believe it, you just restated that you do.

 

As far as honesty goes, were you nearly as concerned about protecting the identity of Nick Sandman? 

 

Have you ever given this much thought to concealing the identity of anyone prior to this story?

 

If so, who?

 

If not, why?

Well, I thought you would see that point with what I wrote but I can spell it out further. 

 

Your point about most everyone knowing the accused whistle blower's name is agreed to.   Good point.  To say NOT ONE MORE unstable person could be notified by you and others shouting on the internet is incorrect, right.  That number is admittedly small but it is non zero.  The more shouting, the more tiny increments in the possible number of attackers to the whistle blower.  Maybe some fool has been plotting his attack on the Mosque for the last 6 months and your shouting caught his ill informed, deranged ears.  While certainly  unlikely, I view it as possible.  To a small degree you have increased threat odds for reasons that are questionable.

 

Don't know Sandman.   I have admittedly not given much thought to whistle blowers in the past.  Why?  Guess it didn't come up in any issue I was watching.  What did I miss that you wish to point out, anything?

[4merper4mer]

6 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Well, I thought you would see that point with what I wrote but I can spell it out further. 

 

Your point about most everyone knowing the accused whistle blower's name is agreed to.   Good point.  To say NOT ONE MORE unstable person could be notified by you and others shouting on the internet is incorrect, right.  That number is admittedly small but it is non zero.  The more shouting, the more tiny increments in the possible number of attackers to the whistle blower.  Maybe some fool has been plotting his attack on the Mosque for the last 6 months and your shouting caught his ill informed, deranged ears.  While certainly  unlikely, I view it as possible.  To a small degree you have increased threat odds for reasons that are questionable.

 

Don't know Sandman.   I have admittedly not given much thought to whistle blowers in the past.  Why?  Guess it didn't come up in any issue I was watching.  What did I miss that you wish to point out, anything?

Shirley you can't be serious.

[IYKYK]

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

 

Good Lord you're nothing but a parrot. You don't have an original thought in that pea brain head of yours. Keep up the good work, only 5 more years to go.

[BillsFanNC]

12 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Don't know Sandman.   I have admittedly not given much thought to whistle blowers in the past.  Why?  Guess it didn't come up in any issue I was watching.  What did I miss that you wish to point out, anything?

 

Have you heard about this whistleblower and how he has been treated?  What are your thoughts on protecting his rights as a whistleblower?  

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/18/stefan-halpers-pentagon-contracts-investigation-sh/

 

Quote

 

The Department of Defense inspector general’s report exposes loose contracting practices at the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment (ONA) — the same kinds of problems reported by analyst Adam S. Lovinger. ONA later accused him of mishandling sensitive data, and he has been suspended without pay.

“The results of this audit only begin to scratch the surface of Mr. Lovinger’s whistleblower complaints about ONA contracting practices,” said his attorney, Sean Bigley. “DoD destroyed Mr. Lovinger because he had the audacity to point out the obvious.”