Foxx Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 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? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 (edited) 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 where does civil trial law fit into this. are we afforded constitutional rights in civil law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 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. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 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. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 2, 2020 Author Share Posted February 2, 2020 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? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 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. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 (edited) 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 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1224038595750699009 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 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 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoudyBills Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 (edited) 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoudyBills Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 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? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts