Impeachment Hearings

[iNow]

Senate trial starts today. Past 3-4 weeks we’ve been in a holding pattern waiting on the House to send the articles over to the Senate, for the Senate to align on their rules, and whether or not witnesses will be allowed.

Thursday they swore in the Chief Justice who in turn swore in the Senators, this was a holiday weekend, and it wasn’t until last night that McConnell released anything whatsoever about the rules. Nothing has been happening.

Perhaps we first consider the lack of change or new information in the story as a more accurate reason for the lack of comments here before assuming we’ve all become apathetic due to gaslighting. 

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

*crickets*

Are we so gas lit nowadays that an impending constitutional crisis is apethetic?

 

[rangerx]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Nothing has been happening.

Moscow Mitch prevaricated his assertion it would be a Clinton style proceeding.

Then of course there's Alan Dershowitz claiming to be the Constitution's attorney, when no such thing exists. Not to mention his glaring double standard on what rises to the level of impeachment.

These dudes put the constitution on trial, because they're too cowardly to address the fact issues at face value. That point seems to be gaining some traction with voters.

I said it before and I will say it again. Only the Republicans can save this disaster from unfolding into a constitutional crisis, but they deliberately lack the fortitude and willingness in the manner capitulated to in the Watergate fiasco for the sake of the union, not their re-elections.

[iNow]

Well, this all but renders it final:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates-senate-rejects-democrats/story?id=68410003

Quote

4:40 p.m. Senate rejects Schumer amendment calling for a subpoena for White House witnesses and documents

On a party line vote, 53-47, the Senate votes to put aside -- or kill -- Schumer's amendment to subpoena witnesses and documents from the White House.

So much for country over party. 

They MAY allow a vote to POTENTIALLY allow witnesses and documents AFTER both sides have argued their cases (basically, the exact opposite of every other court case ever)

[rangerx]

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

Well, this all but renders it final:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates-senate-rejects-democrats/story?id=68410003

So much for country over party. 

They MAY allow a vote to POTENTIALLY allow witnesses and documents AFTER both sides have argued their cases (basically, the exact opposite of every other court case ever)

Jay Sekulo is a lying POS, yet the Republicans walk in lockstep.

Vlad is laughing in the world's face. His plan is unfolding "perfectly".

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

 

They MAY allow a vote to POTENTIALLY allow witnesses and documents AFTER both sides have argued their cases (basically, the exact opposite of every other court case ever)

Isn't that exactly how it was agreed in the Clinton impeachment? I don't know, but that's what I thought...

Going forward, after the cases of each side is heard, assuming they then allow witnesses, do they not get to make their case again based on what comes out?

To the original point (correctly stated or otherwise), your standard court case doesn't debate and pass the rules prior to further procedures.

[rangerx]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Isn't that exactly how it was agreed in the Clinton impeachment? I don't know, but that's what I thought...

Maybe (I'm not certain), but Clinton didn't block witnesses who implicated or supported him, in fact he insisted upon their cooperation. By this time in the senate trial, Clinton was forthright and contrite and carried on the business of the country for the sake of the country. Can't say that about whatever you call that shell of a man in the office today.

[iNow]

In the Clinton case, he didn’t prevent all witnesses from testifying in the House. He provided documents that were subpoenaed. That evidence was allowed into the Senate record before the trial began and they agreed to allow more witnesses in Senate also before the trial began. 
 

But sure, other than that it was pretty much EXACTLY the same.  Lol

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

Maybe (I'm not certain), but Clinton didn't block witnesses who implicated or supported him, in fact he insisted upon their cooperation. By this time in the senate trial, Clinton was forthright and contrite and carried on the business of the country for the sake of the country. Can't say that about whatever you call that shell of a man in the office today.

Pretty different cases though.

1 minute ago, iNow said:

In the Clinton case, he didn’t prevent all witnesses from testifying in the House. He provided documents that were subpoenaed. That evidence was allowed into the Senate record before the trial began and they agreed to allow more witnesses in Senate also before the trial began. 
 

But sure, other than that it was pretty much EXACTLY the same.  Lol

Who claimed it was exactly the same in that regard, INow?

I pretty clearly referred to the rules agreed to. So I guess you agree?

[CharonY]

23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Isn't that exactly how it was agreed in the Clinton impeachment? I don't know, but that's what I thought...

So McConnell has argued that they are using the Clinton impeachment as precedent, but there are quite a few differences in the procedure as iNow mentioned. There is also another important difference, that makes a substantial difference. During the Clinton impeachment house and senate were controlled by the GOP. IOW if the impeaching party wanted to have additional witnesses, they could just have them without much problem. As such this article was not controversial. Now, however, it would mean that the non-impeaching party could (and are obviously in the process of) suppressing relevant evidence and witness testimony.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 minutes ago, CharonY said:

So McConnell has argued that they are using the Clinton impeachment as precedent, but there are quite a few differences in the procedure as iNow mentioned. There is also another important difference, that makes a substantial difference. During the Clinton impeachment house and senate were controlled by the GOP. IOW if the impeaching party wanted to have additional witnesses, they could just have them without much problem. As such this article was not controversial. Now, however, it would mean that the non-impeaching party could (and are obviously in the process of) suppressing relevant evidence and witness testimony.

 

Understood. My point was that though the rules are different from INow's "any court case ever" they are as "standard" as the latest impeachment trial.

I realize that is a GOP point, but it doesn't get refuted by by your post, even though I would agree with the substance of it (your post)

Edited January 22, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I realize that is a GOP point, but it doesn't get refuted by by your post, even though I would agree with the substance of it.

Sure I just wanted to make sure that "agreed" has very different meanings in the two procedures plus the fact that the talking point as a whole (i.e. everything is following the Clinton precedent) is inaccurate, as I think it is quite important context.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, CharonY said:

Sure I just wanted to make sure that "agreed" has very different meanings in the two procedures plus the fact that the talking point as a whole (i.e. everything is following the Clinton precedent) is inaccurate, as I think it is quite important context.

Fair point.

[MigL]

You guys make it sound like you actually expected things to unfold differently...

For Americans ( well, not Rangerx ), you are very naïve.

[J.C.MacSwell]

33 minutes ago, MigL said:

You guys make it sound like you actually expected things to unfold differently...

For Americans ( well, not Rangerx ), you are very naïve.

In other words...

 

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[rangerx]

The Dems are doing a very good job articulating the case. Very matter of fact and clearly laid out in point form under a concise timeline.

The GOP... rhetoric, rancor, lies. Nothing they've presented at this point is grounded in anything reasonable or compelling, imo.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My point was that though the rules are different from INow's "any court case ever" they are as "standard" as the latest impeachment trial.

One of the ideas I intended to convey is how in every single court case ever, including past impeachments, the evidence and witnesses are brought in first then the positions argue and introduce the evidence and witnesses as they do. 

Here, however, the ask is to conclude the arguments completely and only then consider MAYBE having evidence and witnesses allowed... when they’re done.

It’s bass ackwards. It’s not how the Clinton impeachment went. It’s not how any impeachment went. It’s not how any trial in our courts has went. 

55 minutes ago, MigL said:

For Americans ( well, not Rangerx ), you are very naïve.

Just hopeful that Senators really were better than the letter in front of their name. In the House? Sure. They’re a bunch of rubes and yokels, but the Senate? They’re supposed to be statesmen. 

There’s no such thing as false hope. There is only hope. One kind. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

One of the ideas I intended to convey is how in every single court case ever, including past impeachments, the evidence and witnesses are brought in first then the positions argue and introduce the evidence and witnesses as they do. 

Here, however, the ask is to conclude the arguments completely and only then consider MAYBE having evidence and witnesses allowed... when they’re done.

It’s bass ackwards. It’s not how the Clinton impeachment went. It’s not how any impeachment went. It’s not how any trial in our courts has went. 

Again to be clear. If witnesses are allowed, and I really expect there to be some, do they not have closing arguments afterward?

You seem to be saying they won't.

[iNow]

Who the hell knows. We’re in uncharted territories and the senate majority leader is breaking every precedent he can. 

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Who the hell knows. We’re in uncharted territories and the senate majority leader is breaking every precedent he can. 

Yeah that, but in a normal world, I'd expect with witness called, rebuttal first, then closing arguments once rebuttal phase is completed.

That's presuming the GOP doesn't pose legal challenges to SCOTUS.

Never underestimate Moscow Mitch's penchant for obstructionism or going to a court that's in the tank for him.

[iNow]

It’s a bit like forcing someone to purchase the car before allowing them to take a test drive. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

It’s a bit like forcing someone to purchase the car before allowing them to take a test drive. 

True.

Also a bit like Pelosi buying the car without a test drive.

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

It’s a bit like forcing someone to purchase the car before allowing them to take a test drive. 

More like picking one car, then saying you can't have that car, instead the one they pick for you, without the test drive.

[J.C.MacSwell]

They never did trust "Trump's Auto Sales", but they needed a car immediately. Who would have thought a month later when they picked it up that maybe they should have read the smallprint?

[iNow]

I’m sorry now I mentioned cars at all

[moth]

It feel's like some 'obfuscated bureaucracy' were acting behind the scenes to provide a pre-determined outcome for the trial.
If it's ok for the president to demand favors to do his job, why not the people at the Department of Motor Vehicles or the passport office?