Senate trial or peremptory dismissal

[+and-then]

So... assuming the D's vote to approve the Articles of Impeachment, should the Senate use its power to simply dismiss the work of the House as too political or should Trump have his chance to face his accusers?

I believe that if a trial is not held and witnesses called, sworn and deposed, this situation will be even worse for Trump.  If the R's in the Senate quash this chance to get clear, sworn answers from those who pushed to destroy a president, then I'll be convinced that the R's are as much a problem as the D's.

[Farmer77]

53 minutes ago, and then said:

So... assuming the D's vote to approve the Articles of Impeachment, should the Senate use its power to simply dismiss the work of the House as too political or should Trump have his chance to face his accusers?

Oh god yes. Trump should have to take the stand under oath and face his accusers.

Just to clarify you do believe Trump should be under oath to do that right?

54 minutes ago, and then said:

I believe that if a trial is not held and witnesses called, sworn and deposed, this situation will be even worse for Trump.  If the R's in the Senate quash this chance to get clear, sworn answers from those who pushed to destroy a president, then I'll be convinced that the R's are as much a problem as the D's.

Im very fascinated by this mindset.  What exactly are you hoping to get in regards to the impeachment?

 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

He wants to see who from thr Never Trump brigade is willing to commit perjury to “get Trump”.

[Farmer77]

43 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

He wants to see who from thr Never Trump brigade is willing to commit perjury to “get Trump”.

If they do I say sick the dogs on em!

Who of the fact witnesses thus far have been never Trumpers?

 

Edited December 13, 2019 by Farmer77

[eight bits]

3 hours ago, and then said:

should the Senate use its power to simply dismiss the work of the House

It's unclear whether the Senate has that power. The structure of the Constitution is clearly to divide power among three branches, but there are places where the Constitution also provides for division within the legialative branch between the two houses. This is one of those.

The House may choose to assert a well-supported preorgative to present its case to the Senate, with the Chief Justice presiding. That is, the "prosecution" presents its case. One minute after that, the Senate can do whatever it likes (maybe... there's not a lot of precendent one way or the other, but perhaps rather than a defense portion of the trial, just a motion to dismiss).

(Also, I'm not a parliamentarian by any means, but I also see a short-circuit trial as a possibility. The "trial" convenes, a Senator moves to dismiss for, say, failure to state a cause of action. Seconded. On the motion, the Chief Justice allows the House to present its case on offers of proof - no witnesses just the "prosecutors" having their say. Move the question. All those in favor, etc. And that's it.)

We would not have gotten this far unless the majority in the House believed that this spectacle was in their interest (mmm, legalizing weed in the District was a bad idea after all). My intuition says that Trump absolutely adores this kind of thing (if there were a drama queen hall of fame ...), and thinks it is in his interest. Usually, when everybody agrees something should happen, then it happens.

Ol' Mitch as party-pooper? Maybe, but...

 

Edited December 13, 2019 by eight bits

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

We would not have gotten this far unless the majority in the House believed that this spectacle was in their interest

In a normal world pre-Trump I'd agree but the hatred for this man is so exquisite that I honestly believe the Dem base forced Nancy into this action.  I don't care for the woman's mouth, her priorities or her agenda but I give credit where it's due and she's a survivor whose beat the odds to hold that Speaker's gavel twice AND to become the first female Speaker.  IOW, she knows politics and she was signalling just a few weeks ago that an Impeachment that wasn't bipartisan would be wrong for the country.  Then she suddenly flipped on that position.  The PTB DEMANDED this Impeachment, costs be damned.

The very best way for this thing to end without it becoming a long running saga would be for the Red State Dems to vote with Trump and kill the Impeachment before it begins.  I doubt that's going to happen.  Remember, SOMEONE WANTS this blot on his record, even if it costs them the House next year.  If they vote this up and send the articles to the Senate then Trump should publicly, loudly, demand a trial.

[aztek]

this is not about truth, or the right thing, this circus is ONLY about who is in power. and dems will do  ANYTHING to keep it. they started talking about impeachment less than 24 hours after trump was sworn in.

[DarkHunter]

2 hours ago, and then said:

In a normal world pre-Trump I'd agree but the hatred for this man is so exquisite that I honestly believe the Dem base forced Nancy into this action.  I don't care for the woman's mouth, her priorities or her agenda but I give credit where it's due and she's a survivor whose beat the odds to hold that Speaker's gavel twice AND to become the first female Speaker.  IOW, she knows politics and she was signalling just a few weeks ago that an Impeachment that wasn't bipartisan would be wrong for the country.  Then she suddenly flipped on that position.  The PTB DEMANDED this Impeachment, costs be damned.

The very best way for this thing to end without it becoming a long running saga would be for the Red State Dems to vote with Trump and kill the Impeachment before it begins.  I doubt that's going to happen.  Remember, SOMEONE WANTS this blot on his record, even if it costs them the House next year.  If they vote this up and send the articles to the Senate then Trump should publicly, loudly, demand a trial.

While unlikely there is a small chance that impeachment might not make it through the house.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/12/us/politics/trump-impeachment-house-vote-whip-count.html

Not sure if people will be able to see the information or get hit with a paywall, found using incognito mode helps with getting around paywalls.

It seems 136 Democrats and 1 independent have said they will vote for impeachment, 141 Republicans saying they will not vote for impeachment, 12 Democrats being undecided/giving unclear answer, and 85 Democrats along with 56 Republicans not saying anything about impeachment.

Assuming that the 56 Republicans who havent said anything vote no then only 19 Democrats have to defect to stop the impeachment in the house.  Given that there are about 40 who are in districts Trump won by a good margin and 12 are already uneasy about the impeachment vote it's not entirely impossible that 7 more who havent said anything along with the 12 uneasy Democrats vote against impeachment.

It's still highly unlikely but not so unlikely it borders on impossible.

Edited December 13, 2019 by DarkHunter

[+Desertrat56]

7 hours ago, and then said:

So... assuming the D's vote to approve the Articles of Impeachment, should the Senate use its power to simply dismiss the work of the House as too political or should Trump have his chance to face his accusers?

I believe that if a trial is not held and witnesses called, sworn and deposed, this situation will be even worse for Trump.  If the R's in the Senate quash this chance to get clear, sworn answers from those who pushed to destroy a president, then I'll be convinced that the R's are as much a problem as the D's.

This has already been proven, the R's are as much a problem as the D's.  It is the whole fallacy that we only have two parties that has brought us to this.  The control, financial and political, that both parties use to keep any non party person out of the system is illegal and needs to be taken back.

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, and then said:

In a normal world pre-Trump I'd agree but the hatred for this man is so exquisite that I honestly believe the Dem base forced Nancy into this action.  I don't care for the woman's mouth, her priorities or her agenda but I give credit where it's due and she's a survivor whose beat the odds to hold that Speaker's gavel twice AND to become the first female Speaker.  IOW, she knows politics and she was signalling just a few weeks ago that an Impeachment that wasn't bipartisan would be wrong for the country.  Then she suddenly flipped on that position.  The PTB DEMANDED this Impeachment, costs be damned.

I think Pelosi got pushed into the impeachment by the new Democrats who were about to introduce impeachment motions to their respective committees with or without Pelosi.

Doug

[+Hammerclaw]

However the foregone conclusion is arrived at in the Senate, the House Dems one trick pony ride is over. 

[Doug1029]

11 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

However the foregone conclusion is arrived at in the Senate, the House Dems one trick pony ride is over. 

Most Dems don't expect to get a fair hearing in the Senate and never have.  It was all about standing up for what is right from the beginning.  (And maybe a little politicking thrown in.)

Doug

[Gromdor]

Given the defense route they have chosen, this is the only real option.  They can't really bring the Bidens as witnesses because there's no real case against them.  They can't bring Mulvaney, Bolton, and the like as witnesses because it would only reinforce the claims of what Trump did.

The polls seem to show that the "Claim it is all a partisan witch hunt" defense is the only one that will work.  This might upset some of the "thinkers" and it certainly won't exonerate  Trump in the eyes of the roughly 50% that think he did it, but it will get him past this impeachment.  Isn't that all that matters?

[Doug1029]

3 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Given the defense route they have chosen, this is the only real option.  They can't really bring the Bidens as witnesses because there's no real case against them.  They can't bring Mulvaney, Bolton, and the like as witnesses because it would only reinforce the claims of what Trump did.

The polls seem to show that the "Claim it is all a partisan witch hunt" defense is the only one that will work.  This might upset some of the "thinkers" and it certainly won't exonerate  Trump in the eyes of the roughly 50% that think he did it, but it will get him past this impeachment.  Isn't that all that matters?

The real question is:  what will be the result of all this in November?

Doug

[Buzz_Light_Year]

4 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Most Dems don't expect to get a fair hearing in the Senate and never have.  It was all about standing up for what is right from the beginning.  (And maybe a little politicking thrown in.)

Doug

I hope the Senate minority gets the same fairness that was afforded the House minority. However I hope they don't violate the Senate impeachment rules in the same way the House rules on impeachment were violated in the House.

[Gromdor]

4 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

The real question is:  what will be the result of all this in November?

Doug

That's a year away.  The average voter has a short attention span and even shorter memory.  All this impeachment talk will be buried under the next 20 or so scandals. 

[+and-then]

8 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Im very fascinated by this mindset.  What exactly are you hoping to get in regards to the impeachment?

Try not to be too shocked and dismayed but I'd like to see Hunter and uncle Joe and Alexandra Chalupa and Ciaramello and his "bro" Misko all sworn and deposed.  I don't care if it's done in private so long as they are under oath.  I happen to believe that this Impeachment is just another sham attempt to take Trump down.  That's MY opinion and it seems to be shared by millions of other Americans.  The best indicator for this is the swing in support by Independent voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio  

I hope that Trump's attorneys get the chance to dig deeply into the situation that Trump wanted the Ukrainian PM to investigate.  If witnesses are called, they WILL appear or they'll be in contempt and subject to being jailed.  They don't have to testify, they can always plead the 5th but we know what that does to a witnesses credibility.  

The idea that Trump committed a crime or even an inappropriate action is ludicrous in the light of the kind of corruption we KNOW was happening in Ukraine.  I'm curious, did you take the time to watch Glenn Beck's investigative piece on the situation in Ukraine during the time Hunter took his job with Burisma?  Were you aware that Biden was placed in charge of oversight for the aid package that was given to their government?  The first loan guarantee was for 1.8 billion.  In a matter of months it had literally disappeared.  It was deposited in a privately owned bank that happened to belong to a well known Oligarch.  Farmer... that 1.8 B, DISAPPEARED.  No one could explain where the hell it magically drifted off to.  This isn't rhetoric or fairy stories, this happened.  Meanwhile we have Biden in his infamous gloat-fest about how he rolled Poroshenko, I guess, telling him who he HAD to fire or he'd not get another billion.  

There are other witnesses being interviewed by One America News reporter Chanel Rion in a multipart expose/documentary about the corruption and which Americans were involved.  Relax... this part you'll appreciate.  She has one source saying McCain and Graham are up to their necks in the scam also.  IF that turns out to be true it would certainly explain why Graham flip-flopped from demanding testimony from Biden and Ciaramello about 3 weeks ago to now deciding he's calling NO WITNESSES.  It appears that he and marble-mouthed Mitch want to get this thing behind them double-quick with NO sworn testimony at all.  They basically seem to have convinced Trump to let them handle the trial expeditiously so he can put it behind him.

Only... we BOTH know that ain't happening.  Oh sure, he'll be acquitted but NOT a single Democrat that was part of this latest version of the coup will ever be held to account and as a bonus, the media and the Dems can campaign on Trump being guilty and the mean, bad, ornery Republicans whitewashing the whole thing.  You know that's where this ends up.  It does not help Trump.  It only benefits the Left and leaves them with powder dry for the next assault.  I'll have to say, I'm kind of curious what they'll pull out of their orifices next.  It's mildly fascinating at this point.  Trump is setting records in donations and his polling is improving across the board.  I'm not trying to be a smartalec but Nancy seems furious and Nadler actually sounds weak and sick, physically.  He needs to be careful or this stress might be the end of him   

So, what do you think they'll use to attack him after the acquittal?  Any guesses?

[ian hacktorp]

1 hour ago, and then said:

So, what do you think they'll use to attack him after the acquittal?  Any guesses?

Dems have saved their biggest bomb for after the acquittal.  This will certainly be the one that takes out the Orange Scourge once and for all:

Surely Trump won't survive THIS scandal...

Edited December 13, 2019 by hacktorp

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, and then said:

Only... we BOTH know that ain't happening.  Oh sure, he'll be acquitted but NOT a single Democrat that was part of this latest version of the coup will ever be held to account and as a bonus, the media and the Dems can campaign on Trump being guilty and the mean, bad, ornery Republicans whitewashing the whole thing.  You know that's where this ends up.  It does not help Trump.  It only benefits the Left and leaves them with powder dry for the next assault. 

It seems like you go back and forth on this one.  Usually  Trump supporters say it is suicide for the Democrats.  I am not even a Trump supporter and I can't see how looking beaten and weak is going to help the Dems all that much.  And how does that reflect on their Presidential challenger?  Not very well I don't think.

You and I KNOW not very much about what actually went on in Ukraine.  We both have sources that we want to believe,  but that does not guarantee truth.

If you want to talk about Ukrainian corruption, go ahead.  How does that affect us?  2 ways I see.  If US government officials were involved, and if money we intend for aid is being stolen.

In either case it should be Barr, Horowitz, and Durham investigating, not Glen Beck, or Jake Tapper, or Rudy Guiliani giving us a book report on how he spent his Thanksgiving vacation.

If senators were really involved or Vice Presidents, it need to be out in the open.

 

[Tatetopa]

5 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Surely Trump won't survive THIS scandal...

Indeed he will not.  It is likely salt and grease will get him before the Democrats do.

[Big Jim]

When a DA tries to bring charges that it's obvious won't lead to a conviction because of lack of evidence a judge will usually dismiss the charge rather than hold a useless trial.  I see the same thing happening in the Senate.  All the speculation about Trump wanting to put his accusers on the stand is just that, speculation. No one has been able to read him yet.  The best outcome of any indictment is to be acquitted rather than exonerated.  The biggest complaint I've seen from thousands on social media has been that the impeachment effort has been a waste of time and money.  I don't think the Republicans or Trump will benefit from a hearing that will likely be seen the same way.  If the Senate decides to dismiss all charges on the first day there will be an enormous sigh of relief across the land.  Then the short memory will kick in and by election day all anyone will remember about impeachment is that it failed.

[+Hammerclaw]

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

We both have sources that we want to believe,  but that does not guarantee truth

Agreed but I also have the solid foundation of fact where Trump's actions are concerned.  His detractors can feel, think and SAY anything they like but the bottom line is that he had the authority to do what he did.  End of story.  I realize that those who hate the man and think he's the spawn of Satan will never be satisfied until he's gone but they're just going to have to be patient.  Speaking of patience... how many more code red Trump armageddon alerts are you good for?   

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

In either case it should be Barr, Horowitz, and Durham investigating, not Glen Beck, or Jake Tapper, or Rudy Guiliani giving us a book report on how he spent his Thanksgiving vacation.

I think we can excuse Barr and Durham, they're quite busy just now.  Horowitz has ZERO mandated power so he's useless for criminal issues.  The reporters on the Left DAMNED sure aren't interested so Beck will do.  Did you watch the documentary?  The hulabaloo about Giuliani doesn't really bother me.  He's a personal lawyer for Trump and Trump has been publicly savaged for 3 years with no evidence ever presented that he broke the law.  I think reasonable people can understand Trump wanting some payback.  I think Biden has it coming but not near as much as the FBI stooges and that SOB Brennan.  He IS the damned antiChrist.  Evil old buzzard.  The latest I've heard on Durham's progress is a tentative release early to late Spring.  The world warming up, beautiful flowers  and concentrated napalm on the D nominee's chances    OR... it'll turn out that he and Barr are just another set of swamp creatures.  No way I get my hopes up for justice at this point.

[Farmer77]

4 hours ago, and then said:

I happen to believe that this Impeachment is just another sham attempt to take Trump down

How do you get there though? They've admitted it! You can argue that you think potus should have the ability to invite foreign interference in our election but you can't argue it didn't happen. So how do you get to a conspiracy theory about a coup when Trump himself admits to the charges? 

1 hour ago, and then said:

publicly savaged for 3 years with no evidence ever presented that he broke the law. 

You really need to read the Mueller report. I know Barr whsipered sweet nothings but honestly obstruction of Justice is a crime. 

And the charity court case. And the Trump University case. The guys is a crook. 

4 hours ago, and then said:

The idea that Trump committed a crime or even an inappropriate action is ludicrous in the light of the kind of corruption we KNOW was happening in Ukraine. 

Tell me what steps did the US take to ensure Ukraine wasn't corrupt while the money was being held. 

4 hours ago, and then said:

There are other witnesses being interviewed by One America News reporter Chanel Rion in a multipart expose/documentary about the corruption and which Americans were involved.  Relax... this part you'll appreciate.  She has one source saying McCain and Graham are up to their necks in the scam also.  IF that turns out to be true it would certainly explain why Graham flip-flopped from demanding testimony from Biden and Ciaramello about 3 weeks ago to now deciding he's calling NO WITNESSES.  It appears that he and marble-mouthed Mitch want to get this thing behind them double-quick with NO sworn testimony at all.  They basically seem to have convinced Trump to let them handle the trial expeditiously so he can put it behind him

Man I know I talk a lot of **** but on a very serious level this mentality is truly cult like and deeply concerning. 

Everyone in the world is evil and out to get the one shining beacon of truth. 

P.s. I do owe you a slightly better response but am on my cell atm and struggle 

Edited December 13, 2019 by Farmer77