Senate impeachment rules
The Senate is a disappointment in a sham trial, when it reject documents and witnesses. Every nation around the world is following this with great interest.The Senators take an oath as juror’s and judge’s and should be impartial, but their many votes tell something else. They seem to go along with their dishonest and criminal President.
Trump cannot be trusted. He turn on many of his allies, he trashes normal dialog and behavior, imposes sanctions, breaking up agreements, issue tariffs, military strikes at other countries, etc.
The whole world have followed the circus, but have somehow put up with it, because they have viewed him as unruly and out of control. When he is impeached, everyone expect that America would step up to the situation.
Now, just for a moment try to view this from outside the country. United States preach about morals and democracy, liberty and freedoms, sits in a number of International organizations, - what do they see ?
Do they see anything to admire, someone to trust, something of honour and dignity ?
Comments (34)
(Don't expect this one to get a response....).
Guess I am a bit crazy, huh ?
And when did you get the permission to speak for everyone? And on what facts do you base your conclusions.....err everyone's. It's not an attack as our somalian friend would characterize it to be. It's a legitimate question because you frame all your conclusions as if they were fact. And that misdirection is exactly why you will always lose the discussion. You make every argument personal yet pose it as accepted fact. And that is why you will always lose the conversation.
Can't say for the rest of 'em but Greta's had a helluva successful family backed career launch as a vid/documentary producer
By some accounts she's the world's highest paid activist
That's good
Her younger (and more photogenic) sister is getting launched as a singer ...
It'd be a bummer if Greta was left in obscurity. Sibling rivalry and all that, you know.
and documents. Why would any trial do such a thing, except to prevent justice?
No trial should prevent evidence, nor facilitate withholding evidence.
You are right, it is a very poor example for the US citizens and the world to see.
Such behavior is terrible.
and documents."
I'll ask again (3rd time). Why did the House not allow defense witnesses?
Oh Adam.....
My language is not as good as I wish it to be. Sometimes I simply phrase things different to avoid words that I am unsure to spell.
I do not write in order to win an argument or discussion. I often think English, but my neighbor would probably call a psychiatrist if I went down to him and started to speak English ;) Sometimes you just feel a need to express.
You did send me into a flat spin here ;)
"our somalian friend" - not sure what you meant here, but I actually interpret your comments as some friendly advise.
"It's a legitimate question because you frame all your conclusions as if they were fact." - perhaps I do, but I am not much aware of that. I suppose it is a personal trait, unfortunately. To throw out a statement, a thought, as a guide and way to direct your own focus and thoughts. Perhaps it derives from some bad habit from childhood, an attempt to put up a defense before dad would slap you around ?
( I could never predict him )
Frontnine, if I am correct in my interpretation of what you meant, then I am a bit impressed you picked up on that. Very good.
Had to google Maryland - as I wasn't that sure. I did notice your sailboat, so at least perhaps something we could find agrement on. Another spin - in fact, I was called to .. Baltimore. Crazy stuff. Large cruiseship with control system problems of the main engines. Did solve it, but missed out the sightseeing.
@chancer_returns - do not agree. The administration is blocking and will not release documents and witnesses. In normal cases, you can get a court order, get evidence by force. But when his people chair many central positions, how do you do this ? The Senate has the power, and is asked to weigh in on this.
If the Senate does not resolve this, then what ? Militia men ?
hi again Frontnine - "Why did the House not allow defense witnesses?" - you mean in the House hearings ? do you mean defense witnesses for Trump ? He was welcome to attend. However that was a hearing, just like the police would ask witnesses in an investigation. The hearing was not a trial. However, both parties were represented, both parties did vote, but Biden was not the issue of investigation. Simple as that, but the Reps sure tried to deflect the issue.
"Are you a systems engineer? " - perhaps that could cover it, jack of many trades. Did run a company which dealt with all systems in automation, etc. Have a 28 foot sailboat that has not been on the water for years , which is sad.
Sorry, I listen to the senate trial - and experienced trouble with my focus in this answer.
@ 1:10 -
There was no motivation for him to DO SO!
Why would The Don need anything from the Ukraine Prez to demonstrate Joe's corruption when Joe's on record BRAGGING about it!
Do 'Crats want it PROVED their Prez frontrunner's dropping with corruption??
BRING IN THE WITNESSES
I'll ask again (3rd time). Why did the House not allow defense witnesses?
By the chances given by these folks of getting the 'Crat Prez nomination ...
... The Bern has now overtaken Joe as the frontrunner - and Bloomberg has moved into 3rd place. No women need apply
The same folks give The Don a better than 90% chance of not being removed ...
Akin to a trial
My statement is correct. However, Trump was invited to be there, if he wanted.
He could have gave testimony, if he wanted.
Both are trials.
YES, THEY ARE Jim. And both are different from a criminal trial(again, obviously). And that actually you mention it, Trump's counsel SHOULD have been present during the House Proceedings, though as we know the Totalitarian Democrats - the House writes the rules and has the sole power of impeachment - DENIED their presence(just one of a number of highly unprecedented and highly unfair matters as a part of their unfair process). The House Democrats - led my Messrs Pelosi, Nadler & Schiff - have brought immense disgrace on themselves. Completely deranged by their desire to remove Trump by any means necessary, they have failed in their duty as the Legislative Branch, not to mention National Security matters have suffered greatly also as a result of this obsession. The only thing they represent is a refusal to accept and adapt to the changing reality. They are stuck, screaming and shouting, while the rest of the world is determined to move forward. However, it is their choice. And it will be every American's choice come November of this year.
Transcripts of the closed-door proceedings, which were held before public hearings began on Nov. 13, show Republican committee members asking questions of the witnesses. For instance, the Oct. 17 closed-door testimony of Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, was later publicly released, and it shows several Republican lawmakers were present, including the ranking minority members of the intelligence, oversight and foreign affairs committees: Republican Reps. Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan and Michael McCaul. They all asked questions of Sondland, the transcript shows. The House intelligence committee Democratic and Republican lawyers — Daniel Goldman and Steve Castor — also were present and questioned Sondland.
Similarly, the Nov. 16 deposition of Mark Sandy, the deputy associate director for national security at the Office of Management and Budget, shows both Democrats and Republicans from the committees were present and asked questions.
During the Jan. 21 Senate proceedings, Schiff, who is also one of the House impeachment managers, later addressed Cipollone’s claim, saying: “He’s mistaken. Every Republican on the three investigative committees was allowed to participate in the depositions. And more than that, they got the same time we did.”
Cipollone may have been misleadingly referring to an effort by Republicans who weren’t on the intelligence, oversight or foreign affairs committees to gain entrance to the SCIF. That Oct. 23 event, led by Reps. Matt Gaetz and Steve Scalise, was held to protest the non-public aspect of the impeachment inquiry at that point, the lawmakers said.
Cipollone further complained that “the president was forbidden from attending” the closed-door depositions and that “the president was not allowed to have a lawyer present.”
The depositions weren’t hearings or trials, but rather a congressional inquiry. As we mentioned, Republican counsel — though not the president’s — did participate.
Trump Declined to Participate in Judiciary Hearings
In his opening remarks, Sekulow, one of Trump’s personal attorneys representing him at the Senate impeachment, criticized how the House Judiciary Committee conducted its impeachment hearings. But he got the facts wrong.
Sekulow’s comment came after Schiff spoke of “the trifecta of constitutional misconduct justifying impeachment.”
Sekulow, Jan. 21: Mr. Schiff also talked about a trifecta. I’ll give you a trifecta. During the proceedings that took place before the Judiciary Committee, the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, the president was denied the right to access evidence, and the president was denied the right to have counsel present at hearings.
None of that is true. Trump was offered all of that, but he declined to participate in the House Judiciary Committee hearings.
In a Nov. 26, 2019, letter, Rep. Jerry Nadler — the chairman of the Judiciary Committee — invited Trump and his lawyer to attend the committee hearings and ask questions of the witnesses (subject to Nadler’s approval).
The letter also offered to provide Trump with evidence gathered during the impeachment inquiry – including transcripts of the closed depositions and appending information and materials.
“I write to ask if — pursuant to H. Res. 660 and the relating Judiciary Committee Impeachment Inquiry procedures — you and your counsel plan to attend the hearing or make a request to question the witness panel,” Nadler’s letter said.
The next five years will fly by before you know it
Did noticed you have a Bachelor Degree - mind sharing in what field ?
2. The Mueller report found a lot, but at that time - not direct evidence of colluding with the Russia. But more has come out.
3. He may not get a second term, we have to see. But his response have always been to go on attack and deny any wrongdoing. He got many cases in court, where this has been his tactics.
4. they have not come with false claims against him. The defense claim that, but a lot of that is in fact false. Had they allowed witnesses, most everybody is aware of the outcome. But even without, the case is strong. He has no good defense at all. They have even admitted to wrongdoings.
5. Yes, but that is not correct either. They have claimed hearsay, but the facts don't support it.
Just some short answers. To really drive it home, there should be the top witnesses, and Trump himself. But the Senate have voted against witnesses, which then seem to block the case. We will hear the results tomorrow, I believe.
Someone else could answer this better I suppose, and you did express your opinion, so... but for me, as it has been presented, he is guilty. The stonewalling of documents and witnesses, indicate it too.
It has been difficult to follow the case, a lot of words, and some of them have significant legal implications that is not easy to sum up. I only have some common understanding of law.
Why waste your time here then on a dating site...if your so important?...please...tell someone else your BS...
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."
To "try all Impeachments" is quite different from "to shut down" - they failed their duty.
Which is exactly what they did. 2 nonsense articles of impeachment, a sham House process devoid of fairness or even legitimacy(since there was never a formal vote to get it started)
Democrats' crybaby "screams" to try and get the Senate to re-do their pathetic effort, just sums up what a shambolic affair it had been. This is going to cost Democrats big in November.
And rightly so.