The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[Foxx]

10 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

As an employer myself, I’m concerned at the position that an employee could make a claim against me, and I wouldn’t be able to learn who it was so that I might be able to expose an alternative motive. 
PS: We just had that exact circumstance in our company. When the claim was debunked, the employee was fired!

right. that is exactly why there should be no protection of immunity. the claim(s) as well as the motivations behind said claim(s) need to be scrutinized to ascertain whether or not the claim(s) have validity.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

....at least there is ONE Joe who is a voice of reason.............

Joe Lieberman, former Dem VP nominee, says Founding Fathers would have 'intended' Trump's acquittal

 

By Sam Dorman | Fox News

 

Former Sen. Joe Lieberman, who served as Democrats' vice presidential nominee in 2000, reportedly claimed that America's Founding Fathers would have wanted an acquittal in President Trump's Senate impeachment trial.

Lieberman made those comments during an interview with radio host Glenn Beck. He was specifically referring to what Alexander Hamilton and James Madison would have said if they were alive to see Trump's would-be acquittal.

"This is what we intended," Lieberman said the founders would have remarked, according to The Blaze, which is owned by Beck.

 

While Lieberman said that he would vote to allow witnesses, he would ultimately support acquitting the president. He told Beck that Trump shouldn't have conducted the now-infamous July 25 call with Ukraine's president in the way he did, "but did it reach the point where we can say nine months before an election [...] that, if we keep him in office, he represents a danger to the country? I don't think so."

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-lieberman-founders-trump-acquittal

 

 

[Rob's House]

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

You are starting to reason like DR.  Be Careful!  That road leads to madness and insufferable douche-iness..

 

I honestly answered your question of 'why not' several times.  I think doing so is irresponsible because I think you are increasing the odds that a person could be attacked by a political zealot.

 

I agree with your 'everybody knows' argument, but only to an extent.  I mean realistically, not everyone knows.  I am not 100% certain of the whistle blowers identity, to be truthful.  I have seen who has been accused but I would not bet my life on it.  To disagree with my opinion of increasing danger is fine, but to tell me it is dishonest, comes across as arrogant. It may be a talking point but any reasonable individual could easily arrive at that conclusion. 

 

People often criticize my thinking or reasoning skills HERE.  Posters do it within broad criticisms, like the discussion I just had with Foxx.  When I ask where my reasoning breaks down, for specifics, I seldom hear back.  Also I don't get that from people when having an in-person conversation.  Of course people don't always agree anywhere but disagreements aren't typically about reasoning or logic skills.  And, yes, I do socialize with Trump supporters in person. 

 

Please be specific if you wish......If you have issues of faulty reasoning, where, what post?  Certainly we all are capable of mistakes.

 

Oh, and I do appreciate the answer.  It pretty much confirms what I thought.  The increased danger is recognized but dismissed.

 

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?

[3rdnlng]

Lindsey Graham stated this morning that there will be Senate Intelligence Committee hearings presided over by Senator Richard Burr that will investigate the whistle blower and his motives. He will be getting a subpoena soon to show his bearded and bespectacled face in front of that committee. 

[Foxx]

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Lindsey Graham stated this morning that there will be Senate Intelligence Committee hearings presided over by Senator Richard Burr that will investigate the whistle blower and his motives. He will be getting a subpoena soon to show his bearded and bespectacled face in front of that committee. 

cue the predictable lib tears in, 3... 2...

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Lindsey Graham stated this morning that there will be Senate Intelligence Committee hearings presided over by Senator Richard Burr that will investigate the whistle blower and his motives. He will be getting a subpoena soon to show his bearded and bespectacled face in front of that committee. 

 

...why not?....maybe counselor Koko78 can chime in......is a whistleblower guaranteed anonymity?....I thought their protection was from reprisals unless I'm sadly mistaken.......

[B-Man]

14 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Lindsey Graham stated this morning that there will be Senate Intelligence Committee hearings presided over by Senator Richard Burr that will investigate the whistle blower and his motives. He will be getting a subpoena soon to show his bearded and bespectacled face in front of that committee. 

 

 

Are they trying to get him killed ?

 

 

 

.

  

[3rdnlng]

Just now, B-Man said:

 

 

Are they trying to get him killed ?

 

 

 

.

  

I want to apologize in advance for possibly lighting another fire under our very own Chief of the Waponis, Bob of the Michigan Chapter. Having E.C. as a witness is the equivalent of throwing him into the volcano. Hope for his sake he has floatable luggage. 

[B-Man]

 

DOWN TO SEEDS AND STEMS AGAIN: 

 

Democrats reduced to claiming impeachment will be “Permanent Asterisk” for Trump.” 

 

Well, it’s an asterisk for somebody.

 

 

 

.

[CarpetCrawler]

8 hours ago, ALF said:

Whistleblower Laws Enforced by OSHA

 

https://www.whistleblowers.gov/

Quote

the employee who files the complaint is referred to as "the Complainant," 

So who exactly are we labeling the Complainant in this case?

[Foxx]

what the Lib hath wrought.

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1224066320465002502

 

[Azalin]

7 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I am not sure about your claim about the charges from the House being criminal charges.  If convicted in the Senate, there is no criminal offense.  He would just be removed for bribery for instance and then could be charged for the crime after out of office.  Unsure of Senate rules, so I can't say if that 'face accuser' is a Senate trial rule.

 

At this point in time, couldn't others actually accuse Trump at a Senate or criminal trial, if that was an actual requirement?  I don't recall who would be the best, but wouldn't some of the House taped testimony accusing Trump of the scheme and of the obstruction of the document release (obstruction of congress) suffice?

 

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?

Edited February 2, 2020 by Azalin

[B-Man]

5 minutes ago, Foxx said:

what the Lib hath wrought.

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1224066320465002502

 

 

 

Great...........................Biden takes Hillary as Vice President...........................Biden falls on his impeachment sword.........

 

and there she is.

 

[Doc]

10 minutes ago, Foxx said:

what the Lib hath wrought.

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1224066320465002502

 

 

Good.  I also heard that some House Reps are going to introduce a bill to prevent another completely partisan impeachment from happening ever again.  It will be interesting to see if any Dems vote for it.

[snafu]

6 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

 

Great post.  

The person you’re responding to has had this explained to him several times in this thread.

 

 

[Foxx]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Good.  I also heard that some House Reps are going to introduce a bill to prevent another completely partisan impeachment from happening ever again.  It will be interesting to see if any Dems vote for it.

to my way of thinking, there is only one fix that would correct the problem. the problem is that it would require a constitutional convention to get it implemented. i think the only way you could remove partisanship from a impeachment inquiry like that that the Libs initiated, would be to require much the same that is required to remove a President. let's make it so that in order to even begin an inquiry, you need to have 2/3rd's of the House. that would put an end the baloney.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Foxx

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

4 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

DOWN TO SEEDS AND STEMS AGAIN: 

 

Democrats reduced to claiming impeachment will be “Permanent Asterisk” for Trump.” 

 

Well, it’s an asterisk for somebody.

 

 

 

.

...perhaps a Democratic AZZ-terisk.........

[Foxx]

38 minutes 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?

while i mainly agree, i don't believe that there are any 'standards' in a political trial. the guidelines are what the Senate says they are. there is no guarantee to face your accuser, though i think you would be hard pressed to get any sitting Senate to reject that notion.

 

i do agree that there should to be a crime as the statue reads, "bribery, treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors" . "high crimes" in it's context there would seem to indicate you need an actual crime because bribery, treason and misdemeanors are all criminal offenses.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Foxx

[Azalin]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

while i mainly agree, i don't believe that there are any 'standards' in a political trial. the guidelines are what the Senate says they are. there is no guarantee to face your accuser, though i think you would be hard pressed to get any sitting Senate to reject that notion.

 

i do agree that there should to be a crime as the statue reads, "briber, treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors" . "high crimes" in it's context there would seem to indicate you need an actual crime because bribery, treason and misdemeanors are all criminal offenses.

 

It would be interesting to see if any of our attorney-posters could elaborate. I read the 6th amendment and several references before posting, and not one made a differentiation for trials in the senate.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Len, on this board my reply was easily within acceptable standards.  In the context of our interaction however, my reply was too harsh.  You were right.  I apologize for the tone of that reply.  With that said and hopefully accepted and the slate hopefully cleared, I will attack you further.   lol 

 

Keeping it real, I apologized for the delivery.  Folks like you keep saying sure Trump lies, they all lie.  That is a false equivalency.  Just because you can point to where Obama or Schiff lied does not mean that we should accept a president that lies as much as Trump.  I know times have changed since Pres Clinton but to discount honesty is the wrong direction.

 

And seriously, how can Trump supporters even have the gall to claim someone else's lies are wrong?  If lies are wrong they have to be wrong for everyone.  If they are OK now, then please stop making a big deal out of the lies of others. 

Apology accepted though I am visually impaired—so callously suggesting I am blind would likely get you booted from the LiberalSingles.com for sight-shaming.  Watch yourself, the internet is forever.

 

If you see a false equivalency I can live with that. I don’t see it.  I’m going to let you slide on your suggestion that “Trump supporters have gall to claim someone else’s lies are wrong”.  
 

Question for you.  What are the top three lies from the Trump Admin as you see it, and the top three from the reign of Barrack O as you see it?
 

 

 

[Foxx]

8 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

It would be interesting to see if any of our attorney-posters could elaborate. I read the 6th amendment and several references before posting, and not one made a differentiation for trials in the senate.

agreed again. my reply was also my interpretation of what i believe the Constitution to say. as well as listening to what certain constitutional scholars have had to say in the preceding months. the Constitution also doesn't stipulate exactly how the House is to conduct an inquiry other than to say that it is, '...the House...' that will conduct it, not, 'the speaker'. there are hard and fast rules for criminal trials. as was stated often by the WHC during the Senate phase of the trial, the House Managers would have been thrown out, even laughed out of a criminal trial attempting some of the crap they did. all of which, again lends me to believe that there are no hard and fast rules for a political trial. 

[Azalin]

2 minutes ago, Foxx said:

agreed again. my reply was also my interpretation of what i believe the Constitution to say. as well as listening to what certain constitutional scholars have had to say in the preceding months. the Constitution also doesn't stipulate exactly how the House is to conduct an inquiry other than to say that it is, '...the House...' that will conduct it, not, 'the speaker'. there are hard and fast rules for criminal trials. as was stated often by the WHC during the Senate phase of the trial, the House Managers would have been thrown out, even laughed out of a criminal trial attempting some of the crap they did. all of which, again lends me to believe that there are no hard and fast rules for a political trial. 

 

Which seems to bring us full-circle. If the charges are political and not criminal, then the impeachment is toothless, right?

[snafu]

19 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

It would be interesting to see if any of our attorney-posters could elaborate. I read the 6th amendment and several references before posting, and not one made a differentiation for trials in the senate.

 

I agree with your take.

Individuals have constitutional rights, period.

There’s no debate about it.

 

 

[Foxx]

2 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I agree with your take.

Individuals have constitutional rights, period.

There’s no debate about it.

 

 

but wouldn't this then assume that there are legal consequences to a conviction such as a fine and or imprisonment? in a political impeachment, there is only removal from office.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Which seems to bring us full-circle. If the charges are political and not criminal, then the impeachment is toothless, right?

good debate. as you say, would like to hear from other perspectives.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Foxx

[Foxx]

where does civil trial law fit into this. are we afforded constitutional rights in civil law?

[snafu]

Just now, Foxx said:

but wouldn't this then assume that there are legal consequences to a conviction such as a fine and or imprisonment? in a political impeachment, there is only removal from office.

 

No.  The remedy is only removal from office, but that shouldn’t prevent the Senate from allowing the President to have Counsel, or cross examine witnesses, etc.  If there was a crime, then the removed President can be charged and tried later in a judicial proceeding. 

 

As for the political nature of it, that’s actually a check on the a House and Senate to keep within their lanes and not overreach.  If they do, then the electorate can vote them out.

 

[Foxx]

3 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

No.  The remedy is only removal from office, but that shouldn’t prevent the Senate from allowing the President to have Counsel, or cross examine witnesses, etc.  If there was a crime, then the removed President can be charged and tried later in a judicial proceeding. 

 

As for the political nature of it, that’s actually a check on the a House and Senate to keep within their lanes and not overreach.  If they do, then the electorate can vote them out.

 

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?

[Azalin]

3 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?

 

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.

[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

 

[Tiberius]

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.  

[Tiberius]

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?