Trump impeachment effort passes first test in divided U.S. Congress

[Skallywag]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Not this again. Impeachment is not a CRIMINAL process!

True, nothing about criminal, that would be Judicial / Grand Jury indictment I believe.

"Once an individual is impeached, they must then face the possibility of conviction on the charges by a legislative vote, which is separate from the impeachment, but flows from it, and a judgment which convicts the official on the articles of impeachment entails the official's definitive removal from office."

[Nyezhov]

2 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

True, nothing about criminal

There are rules of evidence and standards of proof that are universal in virtually all proceedings where facts must be established.

 

Are folks advocating the Impeachment of a President based on innuedo presented in a fashion which would violate every evidentiary rule? Are folks contending that the Senators should vote on articles purely on party/political grounds, or should each senator, as a juror, evaluate the proof as a juror would, and if so, what standard of proof is to be used? Preponderance? Clear and Convincing? Reasonable doubt?

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

There are rules of evidence and standards of proof that are universal in virtually all proceedings where facts must be established.

 

Are folks advocating the Impeachment of a President based on innuedo presented in a fashion which would violate every evidentiary rule? Are folks contending that the Senators should vote on articles purely on party/political grounds, or should each senator, as a juror, evaluate the proof as a juror would, and if so, what standard of proof is to be used? Preponderance? Clear and Convincing? Reasonable doubt?

It is whatever they want it to be.

And yes, it will be voted on political lines. If trump murdered someone the senate repubs would still not impeach.

 

Its a political trial. You should know by now.

[Kelsall]

53 minutes ago, Sujo said:

It is whatever they want it to be.

And yes, it will be voted on political lines. If trump murdered someone the senate repubs would still not impeach.

You mean vote to convict.  The House impeaches, not the Senate.

 

And if Adam Schiff and Pelosi conducted secret star chamber "impeachment inquiries" and came out and said Trump had murdered somebone, no, the Senate would not convict.  They would throw it out which is what they're going to do unless the Dems make the process fair.  Liz Cheney is now among the people who are demanding transcripts of previous "secret" testimony be released.  If Schiff and Pelosi don't comply with all these requests and make the process fair, the Senate will throw it out, perhaps not even having a trial, in spite of what McConnell is now saying.

 

To sum up, Schiff and Pelosi blew it.  Trump 2020 guaranteed.

Edited November 3, 2019 by Kelsall

[candide]

20 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

You mean vote to convict.  The House impeaches, not the Senate.

 

And if Adam Schiff and Pelosi conducted secret star chamber "impeachment inquiries" and came out and said Trump had murdered somebone, no, the Senate would not convict.  They would throw it out which is what they're going to do unless the Dems make the process fair.  Liz Cheney is now among the people who are demanding transcripts of previous "secret" testimony be released.  If Schiff and Pelosi don't comply with all these requests and make the process fair, the Senate will throw it out, perhaps not even having a trial, in spite of what McConnell is now saying.

 

To sum up, Schiff and Pelosi blew it.  Trump 2020 guaranteed.

Well, it was not really secret as there are currently 47 Republicans in the three commissions. Additionally, Schiff had already announced they will publish the previous transcripts as early as next week.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, candide said:

Well, it was not really secret as there are currently 47 Republicans in the three commissions. Additionally, Schiff had already announced they will publish the previous transcripts as early as next week.

And the nixon and clinton investigations were also secret.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, Kelsall said:

You mean vote to convict.  The House impeaches, not the Senate.

 

And if Adam Schiff and Pelosi conducted secret star chamber "impeachment inquiries" and came out and said Trump had murdered somebone, no, the Senate would not convict.  They would throw it out which is what they're going to do unless the Dems make the process fair.  Liz Cheney is now among the people who are demanding transcripts of previous "secret" testimony be released.  If Schiff and Pelosi don't comply with all these requests and make the process fair, the Senate will throw it out, perhaps not even having a trial, in spite of what McConnell is now saying.

 

To sum up, Schiff and Pelosi blew it.  Trump 2020 guaranteed.

What are you on about. There are republicans in the hearings. The transcripts havent been done but will be provided when done.

 

There will also be public hearings.

[metisdead]

Some troll posts and replies have been removed. 

[Monomial]

14 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

There are rules of evidence and standards of proof that are universal in virtually all proceedings where facts must be established.

 

Are folks advocating the Impeachment of a President based on innuedo presented in a fashion which would violate every evidentiary rule? Are folks contending that the Senators should vote on articles purely on party/political grounds, or should each senator, as a juror, evaluate the proof as a juror would, and if so, what standard of proof is to be used? Preponderance? Clear and Convincing? Reasonable doubt?

 

Modern day impeachments are not about evidence and facts. Ever since the Republicans decided to impeach Clinton, impeachments have been about politics. Facts are merely incidental to the political theater. Did Clinton commit perjury? Of course. Did anyone care? Only those who hated Clinton. Did Trump do what he is being accused of? Almost certainly. Does anyone care? Only those who hate Trump.

 

Modern day impeachments are not about weighing facts and evidence. They are about painting the other side in a politcally bad light, just like mudslinging in a campaign. The Republicans brought this on themselves when they went after Clinton. I don't blame the Democrats at all for going after Trump. Payback is a bitch. I do blame the people who think this is anything other than entertainment however.  Senators *ARE* going to vote straight down party lines. Don't be so naive as to think this is anything like a jury.

 

Unless the Democrats can show Trump slaughtered a bunch of babies, he isn't going to be convicted. The Democrats don't have the numbers.  From now on, every president that doesn't come from the same party as the House likely has an impeachment hearing to look forward to during his time in office.

 

Welcome to the brave new world.

 

[Jingthing]

10 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

Modern day impeachments are not about evidence and facts. Ever since the Republicans decided to impeach Clinton, impeachments have been about politics. Facts are merely incidental to the political theater. Did Clinton commit perjury? Of course. Did anyone care? Only those who hated Clinton. Did Trump do what he is being accused of? Almost certainly. Does anyone care? Only those who hate Trump.

 

Modern day impeachments are not about weighing facts and evidence. They are about painting the other side in a politcally bad light, just like mudslinging in a campaign. The Republicans brought this on themselves when they went after Clinton. I don't blame the Democrats at all for going after Trump. Payback is a bitch. I do blame the people who think this is anything other than entertainment however.  Senators *ARE* going to vote straight down party lines. Don't be so naive as to think this is anything like a jury.

 

Unless the Democrats can show Trump slaughtered a bunch of babies, he isn't going to be convicted. The Democrats don't have the numbers.  From now on, every president that doesn't come from the same party as the House likely has an impeachment hearing to look forward to during his time in office.

 

Welcome to the brave new world.

 

I don't agree with you. This doesn't mean that all presidents are going to get impeached. Impeachment will remain, as it should, to be VERY RARE.

 

I supported Clinton at the time but what Clinton was impeached for was indeed an impeachable offense. The lack of conviction in the senate set the precedent that lying under oath about a personal consensual sexual matter does not rise to conviction level. So no future president will ever be impeached over a similar offense. 

 

45 on the other hand will be charged with massively more serious offenses. He will be impeached. If he is not convicted and I agree he probably won't be, that will set a different and much more dangerous precedent for future presidents.

 

Given the seriousness of 45's impeachable offenses, I don't think Pelosi had any choice but to proceed even realizing that a chance of conviction is slim.

 

Cheers

Edited November 3, 2019 by Jingthing

[Monomial]

29 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I don't agree with you. This doesn't mean that all presidents are going to get impeached. Impeachment will remain, as it should, to be VERY RARE.

 

I supported Clinton at the time but what Clinton was impeached for was indeed an impeachable offense. The lack of conviction in the senate set the precedent that lying under oath about a personal consensual sexual matter does not rise to conviction level. So no future president will ever be impeached over a similar offense. 

 

45 on the other hand will be charged with massively more serious offenses. He will be impeached. If he is not convicted and I agree he probably won't be, that will set a different and much more dangerous precedent for future presidents.

 

Given the seriousness of 45's impeachable offenses, I don't think Pelosi had any choice but to proceed even realizing that a chance of conviction is slim.

 

Cheers

 

We've had this discussion before. No need to rehash again. I understand your point of view.

 

If you hate Trump, you see his actions as serious. However, if you are a Trump supporter, you don't. It really is that simple. This is not going to be a "jury trial" with America passing judgement, even though some will want to frame it as such.  This is a political show, and it will be voted almost straight down party lines.  Don't believe me? Just watch.

 

I continue to maintain this is nothing more than Washington D.C.'s version of a reality TV show and it will have just as much effect.  Everyone's mind is already made up on this. We all know what he did. You say it is serious. The Trump supporters don't see it as serious. They see it as Trump working hard to drain the swamp and pressure Ukraine to investigate corruption. Nobody's opinion is going to be changed.

 

I say bring on the popcorn and enjoy the show.

 

 

 

[Nigel Garvie]

1 hour ago, Monomial said:

 

We've had this discussion before. No need to rehash again. I understand your point of view.

 

If you hate Trump, you see his actions as serious. However, if you are a Trump supporter, you don't. It really is that simple. This is not going to be a "jury trial" with America passing judgement, even though some will want to frame it as such.  This is a political show, and it will be voted almost straight down party lines.  Don't believe me? Just watch.

 

I continue to maintain this is nothing more than Washington D.C.'s version of a reality TV show and it will have just as much effect.  Everyone's mind is already made up on this. We all know what he did. You say it is serious. The Trump supporters don't see it as serious. They see it as Trump working hard to drain the swamp and pressure Ukraine to investigate corruption. Nobody's opinion is going to be changed.

 

I say bring on the popcorn and enjoy the show.

 

 

 

Yes OK, but that's having a laugh. They would have to be raving nutters to actually believe that Trump cares about corruption in any other country, unless he has some vested interest in it. 

 

Trump is the swamp, problem is how do you drain yourself! 

Edited November 3, 2019 by Scott

[Nyezhov]

3 hours ago, Monomial said:

. Ever since the Republicans decided to impeach Clinton, impeachments have been about politics.

Yet there was no impeachment of Obama. And both sides voted to impeach Clinton.

[TopDeadSenter]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

45 on the other hand will be charged with massively more serious offenses.

What, serious offenses like investigating the democrat ex-VP's suspicious dealings abroad? Is that really the crime of the century? I still have no idea what crime Trump is alleged to have done here, and we know from transcripts there was no Quid pro quo. Compared with 44's military interventions destabilizing Syria and Libya for unknown purposes and causing untold death and destruction might I suggest that investigating overseas corruption is not worthy of even a raised eyebrow let alone a full on witch hunt and impeachment fiasco.

[Tug]

2 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

What, serious offenses like investigating the democrat ex-VP's suspicious dealings abroad? Is that really the crime of the century? I still have no idea what crime Trump is alleged to have done here, and we know from transcripts there was no Quid pro quo. Compared with 44's military interventions destabilizing Syria and Libya for unknown purposes and causing untold death and destruction might I suggest that investigating overseas corruption is not worthy of even a raised eyebrow let alone a full on witch hunt and impeachment fiasco.

I guess you think it’s ok to invite foreigners to meddle in our elections and not uphold the constitution guess you think it’s ok to shake down a country that’s in a desperate situation blablabla troll

[bristolboy]

Unlikelty that even Trump could be this stupid twice.

"Asked about Democrat concerns that he could shut down the government again if they continue to pursue and impeachment inquiry against him, Mr Trump replied: “I don’t think they believe that at all,”

 

Speaking on the White House lawn, he added: "I wouldn't commit to anything. It depends on what the negotiations are." 

Congress has a deadline of 22 November to reach a funding agreement before triggering a shutdown.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-government-shutdown-chuch-schumer-a9183661.html

[WayWokeWhiteGuy]

2 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

What, serious offenses like investigating the democrat ex-VP's suspicious dealings abroad? Is that really the crime of the century? I still have no idea what crime Trump is alleged to have done here, and we know from transcripts there was no Quid pro quo. Compared with 44's military interventions destabilizing Syria and Libya for unknown purposes and causing untold death and destruction might I suggest that investigating overseas corruption is not worthy of even a raised eyebrow let alone a full on witch hunt and impeachment fiasco.

 

1. There does not need to be a crime.

 

2. There does not need to be quid-pro-quo

 

3. The evil orange one is going down!!!!!