Impeachment Thread

[JackLuis]

‘Trials have witnesses!’ Chuck Schumer holds presser and calls out Mitch McConnell’s impeachment ‘cover-up’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) demanded at a press conference on Monday that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) allow witnesses at the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

While speaking to reporters, Schumer said that McConnell had indicated he was ready to negotiate on rules for a Senate trial.

“Senate Democrats believe strongly that the trial must be fair and it’s very important that the American people judge it to be fair,” Schumer said. “A fair trial is one where Senators get all the facts & one that allows them to adjudicate the case impartially.”

Moscow Mitch doesn't want the Trumpanzies to testify! So he doesn't want the PeeResident to be defended?

 

[jomar]

So the senate trial should be the republicans big chance to prove Trump is innocent and really put egg on the duplicitous Democrats face once and for all. But I mean, them not having a meaningful trial, as it sounds lie it's going to be, would clearly be interpreted as republicans protecting Trump because they don't want to expose his guilt. How do they live that down?

Also, is McConnell making a misstep here by saying he's in lockstep with WH defense and there will be no daylight between the two? How can he even say something like that since it clearly abdicates his constitutional senate role in an impeachment trial? I don't get that.

 

[OrLaTime]

So the senate trial should be the republicans big chance to prove Trump is innocent and really put egg on the duplicitous Democrats face once and for all. But I mean, them not having a meaningful trial, as it sounds lie it's going to be, would clearly be interpreted as republicans protecting Trump because they don't want to expose his guilt. How do they live that down?

Also, is McConnell making a misstep here by saying he's in lockstep with WH defense and there will be no daylight between the two? How can he even say something like that since it clearly abdicates his constitutional senate role in an impeachment trial? I don't get that.

Some republicans must know through Trump that Putin has their balls in his sack as well! So they accept Trump’s hand way up their keisters

 

[JackLuis]

Moscow Mitch seems to think that if the Senate has a trial, the Dem's will use it as a way to Impeach the whole Party, and all of the minions will be burned to their roots! THe Ukrainum One plot has burned Trumpski, Pompeo, Rudy, Pence, Perry, Nunes, and sundry others, so maybe he's right!

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

So the senate trial should be the republicans big chance to prove Trump is innocent and really put egg on the duplicitous Democrats face once and for all. But I mean, them not having a meaningful trial, as it sounds lie it's going to be, would clearly be interpreted as republicans protecting Trump because they don't want to expose his guilt. How do they live that down?

Also, is McConnell making a misstep here by saying he's in lockstep with WH defense and there will be no daylight between the two? How can he even say something like that since it clearly abdicates his constitutional senate role in an impeachment trial? I don't get that.

A quick trial and acquittal is the way to go. Victory is a certainty. The House had its chance to persuade the public and its pretty obvious that did not work out the way they hoped. People have made up their minds. Everybody understands that McConnell is working in lockstep with the defense in the White House, and Schumer is working with the prosecution in the House. There’s nothing unconstitutional about that.

 

[KeithD]

Victory is a certainty.

I'm pretty sure that "Victory" might not be shown until the evening of the second Tuesday in November, 2020. I, for one, am not going to give any premature conclusions on what that will look like.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

A quick trial and acquittal is the way to go. Victory is a certainty.

In a third world country this would be expected, however this is the USA, the gold standard of democracy, or so you all say.

The House had its chance to persuade the public and its pretty obvious that did not work out the way they hoped.

Impeachment is a purely political mechanism. I am sure the founding fathers wished the people closest to power, be the ones to curtail abuse. Not to wait around for the "public" to raise the alarm.

People have made up their minds.

So what? The people are not the Jury, the Senate is supposed to be the jury.

Everybody understands that McConnell is working in lockstep with the defense in the White House,

I don't understand that, my wife doesn't, in fact the majority here in Canada are just shaking their heads in disbelief.

and Schumer is working with the prosecution in the House.

If he is, he should not be, all I have seen on record from Schumer is to start the negotiation for the trial frame work.

There’s nothing unconstitutional about that.

If there isn't??? Well there should be, a huge omission by your founding fathers I would say. So you can be a jurist, and work lock step with the defence. Interesting, sounding again like a banana republic, not the United States.

 

[KeithD]

There's a little pledge each senator has to make beforehand that they will be impartial. Declaring up front you're not going to be makes this become unconstitutional. The stupidity of a couple of Republicans, of course, is having the arrogance to say up front they aren't going to be impartial or that they, as the prosecutor, are going to be in lockstep with the defendant.

History will soak all of this up and will spit it out again every time this event comes up down through history, however long that's going to be.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Declaring up front you're not going to be makes this become unconstitutional.

Please cite the relevant article(s) of the Constitution that has been violated.

 

[phrodeau]

Please cite the relevant article(s) of the Constitution that has been violated.

The Sixth Amendment. He only has the right to an impartial jury, and not one that’s partial to him.

 

[KeithD]

Please cite the relevant article(s) of the Constitution that has been violated.

Does your mother know she raised a rotten kid?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The Sixth Amendment. He only has the right to an impartial jury, and not one that’s partial to him.

I am not a constitutional lawyer or expert, but it’s my understanding that the sixth amendment applies to criminal prosecutions, and that the right to a jury applies only to offenses in which the penalty is imprisonment for longer than six months.

Has Trump been charged with a statutory crime? And if he is convicted of either of the two House articles of impeachment, will he be subject to imprisonment?

If Senator Schumer or other any other members of the Senate coordinate with the House prosecutors, will that be unconstitutional too?

When Senator Daschle’s staff members coordinated with White House defense lawyers during the Clinton impeachment trial, were they violating the Constitution?

 

[YDB95]

Article I, Section 3: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation."

I think any reasonable interpretation of "on Oath or Affirmation" would indicate that senators are to weigh the evidence as impartially as possible. McConnell has as good as said he will not do that under any circumstances. Given the intentionally vague wording of the Constitution, that might well pass muster, but there is NO question that it's a violation of the spirit of the directive.

 

[magicalmoments]

USA = 1st world, maybe just. However I reserve the right to review my opinion once the senate acquittal has concluded.

The founding fathers worked so hard to provide a constitution that would prevent the republic ever allowing a tyrant to rise to power and it seems they may have failed miserably.
This, plus the contempt in which tyrant is held internationally, the revenge he will inflict on all those who spoke against him and those who managed the impeachment process, will drag the USA down into 2nd and eventually 3rd world status. All helped along by the, according to trump, ongoing and apparent unending massive economy killing trade deficit, national debt, and devastating GDP.

And I get to watch it all on the best reality TV show ever!

 

[KeithD]

The founding fathers worked so hard to provide a constitution that would prevent the republic ever allowing a tyrant to rise to power and it seems they may have failed miserably.

It's the Republicans in Congress who have failed the test miserably. The Founding Fathers didn't contemplate more than half of the members of a Senate would put corruption, criminality, and treason above their responsibilities to the nation. (The Founding Fathers didn't contemplate there being a two-party system in sway, though. The party system formed later).

For that matter the Founding Fathers didn't provide or foresee the current Constitution. What they contemplated and provided were the Articles of Confederation (in 1881, which became the foundation of the government with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. The current Constitution didn't even start to be formed until 1887 and went into effect in 1889. The nation had already been "founded" by then).

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Here is the oath members of the Senate will take:

“I*solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”*

None of them have taken it yet,but once they do, they’ll be bound to honor it.

I expect McConnell’s staff to coordinate with White House lawyers in much the same way Daschle’s staff coordinated with White House lawyers during the Clinton impeachment trial. If McConnell’s actions are called into question, Chief Justice Roberts will be the one to decide the legal questions.

 

[JackLuis]

Here is the oath members of the Senate will take:

“I*solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”*

None of them have taken it yet,but once they do, they’ll be bound to honor it.

Well we know how well Rethuglicunts Honour the Constitution, so I expect they will do the same for their oath of jury just as well.

 

[JackLuis]

When a chief justice reminded senators in an impeachment trial that they were not jurors

The principle, that senators are not jurors in the traditional sense, was well established at the outset of the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.

Tasked with delivering an opening statement for the House Managers – who present the House’s case to the Senate – Rep. Robert Barr (R-Ga.) reminded the senators of Clinton’s tendency to “nitpick” over details or “parse a specific word or phrase of testimony.” To Barr, the conclusion was obvious: “We urge you, the distinguished jurors in this case, not to be fooled.”

That was the moment Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, had been waiting for.

“Mr. Chief Justice,” he said, addressing William Rehnquist, who was presiding over the trial, “I object to the use and the continued use of the word ‘jurors’ when referring to the Senate.”
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, raised a crucial point about senators’ roles in the impeachment trial of President Clinton in 1999.
AP/Joe Marquette

Harkin had prepared well, basing his argument on the text of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the rules of the Senate itself.
Report Advertisement

He explained that “the framers of the Constitution meant us, the Senate, to be something other than a jury.”

Instead, Harkin continued, “What we do here today does not just decide the fate of one man. … Future generations will look back on this trial not just to find out what happened, but to try to decide what principles governed our actions.”
Report Advertisement

Chief Justice weighs in

The Chief Justice sustained the objection.

“The Senate is not simply a jury,” he ruled. “It is a court in this case.”

Rehnquist thus admonished the House Managers “to refrain from referring to the Senators as jurors.” For the balance of the trial, they were called “triers of law and fact.”
Report Advertisement

Rehnquist and Harkin got it right. Article III of the Constitution provides that “Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury,” and for good reasons.

I wonder if Mitch will use the Australian Ballot for his Kangaroo Court?

 

[YDB95]

I expect McConnell’s staff to coordinate with White House lawyers in much the same way Daschle’s staff coordinated with White House lawyers during the Clinton impeachment trial.

Tom Daschle himself never said anything to the effect that he intended to spend the trial acting as a proxy for Clinton, or that he would support him no matter what emerged. He did vote to acquit Clinton, but that only made him part of a bipartisan majority in a Republican-controlled Senate.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I can't help looking askance at what the Dems in the House have done. After three years of trying, they have produced two articles of impeachment and neither of them is even a crime, let alone a "High Crime or Misdemeanor." Both are the normal way of life in Washington. Even so, because of TDS, there is a chance they will vote to impeach, only to see the Senate vote to acquit.

 

[OrLaTime]

Normal way of life in Washington?
Bullshit!!
Moscow? Maybe

 

[YDB95]

I can't help looking askance at what the Dems in the House have done.

I can't imagine anyone who has seen your perspectives here before is the least bit surprised at that!

After three years of trying, they have produced two articles of impeachment and neither of them is even a crime, let alone a "High Crime or Misdemeanor."

That's for the Senate to decide, not you.

Both are the normal way of life in Washington.

Where's your evidence that any other president has ever done what Trump did with Zelensky?

 

[KeithD]

I can't help looking askance at what the Dems in the House have done.

Why, of course you can't help it. That's why you are you. Just because they are pursuing two now doesn't mean that they don't believe (and a preponderance of other people don't believe) that they could--and still might--put together more articles. There has been no previous president to point to who is so blatantly and openly corrupt, criminal, and treasonous. Trump associates have been convicted criminally in cases that have named Trump as equally guilty. Whenever he leaves the presidency, he faces criminal prosecution for these crimes as well. He has been found guilty and fined for such crimes as fraud in his Trump University scam and theft in the closing down of his "charity" foundation even while he's been in office. I think everyone but you knows that even if they are choosing to pretend to not know it. Your ignorance is just naturally you.

 

[JackLuis]

https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/mitch-mcconnellski-400x240.jpg


Moscow Mitch McConnell wants a show trial — but smart Democrats won’t give him one

Republicans have handed Democrats a political gift by making it clear they plan on acquitting President Trump after the most minimal Senate impeachment trial possible. The question is whether Democrats can seize this opportunity. In a divided Congress, House Democrats control one important weapon. According to many legal experts, they can withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate — meaning that no impeachment trial can occur until the Republican Senate leadership agrees to some approximation of a fair and thorough process.Last week Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that there would be “total coordination” between the White House and Senate Republicans in an impeachment trial. He later added that “there will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this,” saying that the case against Trump “is so darn weak.” This is in spite of the fact that we know, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Trump withheld $391 million in military aid from Ukraine while asking that country’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to open an investigation into Vice President Joe Biden, one of Trump’s most likely opponents in the 2020 election.

In the face of this obvious bad faith, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has proposed a set of rules that were agreed upon by both parties for Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999. There is no legal or ethical reason not to apply those rules to Trump’s trial.

We have no idea how McConnell will respond to Schumer’s not-so-bold suggestion that Democrats and Republicans should be held to the same standard. Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe recently tweeted that if McConnell “rejects these reasonable ground rules & insists on a non-trial, the House should consider treating that as a breach of the Senate’s oath & withholding the Articles until the Senate reconsiders.” He later clarified in a follow-up tweet that “by ‘withholding’ the Articles I don’t mean not voting for them — I mean voting for them but holding off on transmitting them to the Senate.”

Or, Dem's could just vote on the "First Two" Indictments and let them hang as they develop a few other charges, Obstruction, emoluments,... etc. until the Supreme Court rules on his tax cases. This would allow Rudy to further confess to his fuckery and Trumpski to rage and rant for a few more months.

 

[JackLuis]

George Conway, Steve Schmidt and Rick Wilson burn Trump to the ground in scathing joint op-ed

Four prominent conservatives, including the husband of White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway, called for the defeat of President Donald Trump.

George Conway, Steve Schmidt, John Weaver and Rick Wilson published an op-ed for the New York Times rebuking Trump as unfit to serve, and they shamed the Republican Party for replacing conservatism “with an empty faith led by a bogus prophet.”

“Over these next 11 months, our efforts will be dedicated to defeating President Trump and Trumpism at the ballot box and to elect those patriots who will hold the line,” the men added. “We do not undertake this task lightly, nor from ideological preference. We have been, and remain, broadly conservative (or classically liberal) in our politics and outlooks. Our many policy differences with national Democrats remain, but our shared fidelity to the Constitution dictates a common effort.”

It's Okay to be a never-Trumper!