The US Presidency 2020
- Thread starter FJAG
- Start date
- Status
Baz said:
What’s to say? The vast majority of members here have enough savvy that we knew this whole thing was doomed as a farce from early on. While it might be *particularly* disappointing that Republican senators denied a fair and objective trial with witnesses, I doubt anyone is particularly surprised that it went down like that. Before paths were even sworn several senators made it clear they meant nothing. Not much ‘intrigue’ to be found here, just pure partisan hackery from nearly all involved (with McConnell as an outlier).
So we can gnash our teeth and piss and moan and quip, or we can shrug and carry on with our lives.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 5,872
- Points
- 1,160
It's all a silly show. Like Nancy Pelosi sneaking the speech down "out of view" so she can pre-rip the couple pieces of paper to ensure a clean "spontaneous" rip of the speech minutes later.
T-Shirts picturing her ripping the speech appear to be selling for a cool $25 greenbacks. Wish is letting MAGA hats go at $3.
T-Shirts picturing her ripping the speech appear to be selling for a cool $25 greenbacks. Wish is letting MAGA hats go at $3.
- Reaction score
- 1,026
- Points
- 1,160
Where do you get
They heard ALL the evidence the Democratic House of Representatives had (whose job it is investigate; not the Senate), and ALL that the Impeachment Managers stated during hours of testimony.
The Republican senators refused to call new witnesses (to do the Democratic House of Representatives task) for the Democrats "iron clad case". https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/30/us/politics/impeachment-witnesses.html
?
They heard ALL the evidence the Democratic House of Representatives had (whose job it is investigate; not the Senate), and ALL that the Impeachment Managers stated during hours of testimony.
The Republican senators refused to call new witnesses (to do the Democratic House of Representatives task) for the Democrats "iron clad case". https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/30/us/politics/impeachment-witnesses.html
Rifleman62 said:
They denied a trial with witnesses. It's not rocket surgery. I get it from it being a self-evident, objectively verifiable fact. This is the first impeachment trial in Senate history without witnesses, be it presidents or judges. Hell, some of the Republican senators who voted not to allow witnesses stand bludgeoned by their own hypocrisy when their statements on the issue of witnesses in the Bill Clinton senate trial are looked back upon.
I'm well aware that there was investigation and witnesses in the house. While I know better than to mistake this proceeding for a judicial one, to my simple mind anyway, 'trial' suggests it's appropriate to have witnesses. This wasn't a trial in any recognizably meaningful judicial respect; I've been part of a number of those. It was two sides each giving a statement in a legislative house and than the side with controlling votes voting to shut the whole thing down. There was at least one extremely relevant, and reasonably compelling witnesses who was there ready to go and would have had directly relevant things to say. The Republican senate refused it.
That's fine; it's a partisan process, and it played out in a permissible manner. But it wasn't anything resembling a fair trial intended to actually determine facts or culpability.
QV said:
You seem to be really struggling with the underlying concepts here. I'm not sure how you call it a 'coup attempt' when the end result of a guilty verdict and a removal would have been '2ic take over' with Mike Pence stepping up. That's not a 'coup'. At worst if it had gone that way it could have been called 'due process', with the result being a constitutionally sound removal of a president from office, but his party retaining the presidency. A coup is inherently *outside* of the legal processes ('legal' as in both the formal law, and 'lawful' exercise of constitutionally granted political authorities). This was anything but that. It may have been farcical, but it fell well within the law.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,191
- Points
- 1,040
>This is the first impeachment trial in Senate history without witnesses, be it presidents or judges.
Not exactly. For those who might be interested: more stuff about witnesses and impeachment hearings.
Not exactly. For those who might be interested: more stuff about witnesses and impeachment hearings.
Brad Sallows said:
I stand corrected on that point, thank you. Nonetheless, proceedings without witnesses can still be fairly said to be rare. I definitely disagree with the claim that this was an attempt to make some 'entirely new system of justice for one man'. No. They went with the system as it has existed for a long time and as it has been implemented in a majority of cases.
The Republican senate's refusal to allow new witnesses to be called when at least on significant and compelling one from within the administration had emerged is still a very telling and very partisan fact.I cannot see that and think that the bulk of Republican senators were faithful to the oath they swore. I bear no illusion that calling Bolton or other witnesses would have resulted in an impeachment in a Republican controlled senate, but they jammed a branch through the spokes of the wheels of justice on this one.
In any case, the matter now returns to the voters, which in parliamentary democracies is how many such things ultimately play out.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,191
- Points
- 1,040
There was never any hope of impartiality; Democrats and others have been trying to fit impeachment to circumstances since the inauguration. Nor was there ever any hope of a fishing expedition in the Senate.
The lack of Republican "impartiality" was exceeded only by the lack of Democratic "impartiality". The made-up obstruction charge would not have been a matter for finding guilt, let alone removal, for nearly any reasonable and impartial person. Because the Senate vote is one answer for two questions (is the charge proven? does the charge merit removal?), Republicans can hide behind a fig leaf (proven, but not worth removal). Democrats don't even have that, because each vote for removal on the obstruction charge implies a guilty finding. That more than a handful of the most irredeemable partisans found "guilt" for asserting legal privileges and immunities was the worst single possible outcome of the whole sorry circus.
Witnesses with new evidence (Bolton) should have been heard, and might have been heard if Democrats hadn't pissed off Republicans. As for the rest, what witnesses or documents were required that weren't in the package delivered with the articles? The trial is to try the case already prepared; all the facts required (except Bolton's possible revelation) were available to the Senate. It isn't as if people were needed to testify how evidence was gathered, that the chain of evidence was maintained, etc.
If there wasn't enough evidence, how could anyone vote to convict/remove? Ergo, there was enough evidence.
The lack of Republican "impartiality" was exceeded only by the lack of Democratic "impartiality". The made-up obstruction charge would not have been a matter for finding guilt, let alone removal, for nearly any reasonable and impartial person. Because the Senate vote is one answer for two questions (is the charge proven? does the charge merit removal?), Republicans can hide behind a fig leaf (proven, but not worth removal). Democrats don't even have that, because each vote for removal on the obstruction charge implies a guilty finding. That more than a handful of the most irredeemable partisans found "guilt" for asserting legal privileges and immunities was the worst single possible outcome of the whole sorry circus.
Witnesses with new evidence (Bolton) should have been heard, and might have been heard if Democrats hadn't pissed off Republicans. As for the rest, what witnesses or documents were required that weren't in the package delivered with the articles? The trial is to try the case already prepared; all the facts required (except Bolton's possible revelation) were available to the Senate. It isn't as if people were needed to testify how evidence was gathered, that the chain of evidence was maintained, etc.
If there wasn't enough evidence, how could anyone vote to convict/remove? Ergo, there was enough evidence.
Congress started after the president on the day he was elected. They have spent 3 years and multi-millions or maybe billions trying to bring him down. During all that time, can anyone point to a single, noteworthy piece of legislation initiated and passed by congress that has advanced the welfare of the people of the United States? The entire group needs to be impeached for grand theft of the tax payers money in the form of their salaries (not to mention the staff manyears that has gone into their research.
- Reaction score
- 1,383
- Points
- 1,260
YZT580 said:
Good question to ask the man who calls himself, "The Grim Reaper".
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=641&sxsrf=ACYBGNRRHnTUz_UqqN0yIf_UVzAq1HTGpw%3A1581045130250&ei=itU8XvL0DpCY_QasqqzYCw&q=mcconnell+%22grim+reaper%22&oq=mcconnell+%22grim+reaper%22&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..47027...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.QVj32ENdrTk&ved=0ahUKEwjy4fKKvL7nAhUQTN8KHSwVC7s4ChDh1QMICg#spf=1581045177700
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,667
- Points
- 1,160
mariomike said:
I think that you were entirely too subtle in your answer MM. As of last November, McConnell has held up 400 pieces of House legislation passing only a small handful. Not entirely unexpected for the man that held up a Supreme Court appointment for a year to spite Obama.
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/29/20977735/how-many-bills-passed-house-democrats-trump
Time for a Democrat Senate.
:cheers:
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,616
- Points
- 1,010
Brihard said:
The senate result clearly bothers you. I note you never once commented on all the corrupt activities involving FISA, Horowitz findings etc. You ignore all the evidence of corruption on the other side. There was a concerted effort to prevent, remove, and damage POTUS using unlawful means by those in trusted positions of authority. There are strong cases for treason, sedition, and corruption. I'm looking forward to your commentary when those corrupt former officials are brought to justice.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,191
- Points
- 1,040
>Time for a Democrat Senate.
Why? The country seems to be ticking along without 400 more bills signed into law. How are 400 bills debated meaningfully in less than a year?
The US is better served when Congress is split between parties.
Add: plus ca change.
The Senate in 2014
The Senate in 2016
Why? The country seems to be ticking along without 400 more bills signed into law. How are 400 bills debated meaningfully in less than a year?
The US is better served when Congress is split between parties.
Add: plus ca change.
The Senate in 2014
The Senate in 2016
- Status
Similar threads
