The Trial of the Century?

[jwoodie]

OK now that I've got your attention, a few basic points about the Impeachment process:

1. The Constitution set up the Impeachment process as a jury trial.

2. The House is the prosecutor, the Senate is the jury (and the Chief Justice is the judge).

3. The Senate hears the House's case and then the President's defense (if any).

4. The Senate then decides (by 2/3 majority) whether the evidence presented warrants removing the President from office.

Despite what has been done in the past, it is unnecessary and improper for the Senate itself to call additional witnesses. This not only undermines the Senate's role as an impartial jury, it also undermines the House's role as a prosecutor. For example, what if the Senate's witnesses provide new evidence which undermines or disproves the impeachment allegations? Shouldn't House members who originally voted for impeachment be able to change their votes, based on this new information?

The answer is that each of the parties has a mandated Constitutional role, and blurring those roles does not serve the intent of the Constitution or our basic principles of justice.

 

[jwoodie]

Conversely, what if the Senate's witnesses prove some high crime that hasn't been specified in the Articles of Impeachment? Should the Senate be able to remove the President on that basis, even though the House hasn't concurred?

 

[tyroneweaver]

Trump already committed a crime. It was her turn.....and don’t you forget it

 

[Dick Foster]

Conversely, what if the Senate's witnesses prove some high crime that hasn't been specified in the Articles of Impeachment? Should the Senate be able to remove the President on that basis, even though the House hasn't concurred?

No! Read the constitution, dummy. Thats like asking if a jury could toss your ass into jail with no charges ever being filed by the prosecutor or charged to the jury by the judge.

 

[jwoodie]

Conversely, what if the Senate's witnesses prove some high crime that hasn't been specified in the Articles of Impeachment? Should the Senate be able to remove the President on that basis, even though the House hasn't concurred?

No! Read the constitution, dummy. Thats like asking if a jury could toss your ass into jail with no charges ever being filed by the prosecutor or charged to the jury by the judge.

Read my OP, dummy. I do not think the Senate should consider any evidence other than what is presented by the House prosecutors and the defense.

 

[Siete]

Conversely, what if the Senate's witnesses prove some high crime that hasn't been specified in the Articles of Impeachment? Should the Senate be able to remove the President on that basis, even though the House hasn't concurred?

No! Read the constitution, dummy. Thats like asking if a jury could toss your ass into jail with no charges ever being filed by the prosecutor or charged to the jury by the judge.

Read my OP, dummy. I do not think the Senate should consider any evidence other than what is presented by the House prosecutors and the defense.

then the senate shouldnt figure into the outcome of the trial ..

 

[Kilroy2]

OK now that I've got your attention, a few basic points about the Impeachment process:

1. The Constitution set up the Impeachment process as a jury trial.

2. The House is the prosecutor, the Senate is the jury (and the Chief Justice is the judge).

3. The Senate hears the House's case and then the President's defense (if any).

4. The Senate then decides (by 2/3 majority) whether the evidence presented warrants removing the President from office.

Despite what has been done in the past, it is unnecessary and improper for the Senate itself to call additional witnesses. This not only undermines the Senate's role as an impartial jury, it also undermines the House's role as a prosecutor. For example, what if the Senate's witnesses provide new evidence which undermines or disproves the impeachment allegations? Shouldn't House members who originally voted for impeachment be able to change their votes, based on this new information?

The answer is that each of the parties has a mandated Constitutional role, and blurring those roles does not serve the intent of the Constitution or our basic principles of justice.

Yes an impeachment is a little different that what people see on TV or watching it on TV (OJ)

ultimately this is just to remove a public official from his job

The jury is made of people who are bias and there are a hundred of them

in a real jury they can talked about the case to the media

yet the head guy has already publicly said that there is zero change of Trump being impeached in this process

Judges usually take command of the court but I would be funny to see a judge trying to take command of a room full of senators

Still I would like to see and hear witnesses so that whether you agree or disagree you heard what people with direct knowledge have to say

will testimony make a difference , probably not with most but all you need is a few people to think hard about it

Trump can cry do process but he doesn't need it as he has supporters in the room

Still the real fallout will be determined in Nov

 

[Augustine_]

The entire GOP knows Trump is screwed if witnesses are called because he spends most of his Presidency violating the law and abusing his power. That is why they are blocking any trial from happening.

 

[jwoodie]

The entire GOP knows Trump is screwed if witnesses are called because he spends most of his Presidency violating the law and abusing his power. That is why they are blocking any trial from happening.

 

[Siete]

The entire GOP knows Trump is screwed if witnesses are called because he spends most of his Presidency violating the law and abusing his power. That is why they are blocking any trial from happening.

THEY DAMN WELL KNOW HE WILL LIE UNDER OATH 10 SECONDS AFTER HE SWEARS ON THE BIBLE -

 

[CWayne]

Conversely, what if the Senate's witnesses prove some high crime that hasn't been specified in the Articles of Impeachment? Should the Senate be able to remove the President on that basis, even though the House hasn't concurred?

Has the current list of witnesses used in the impeachment provided any evidence that the President should be removed? According to trial procedure, the prosecution is entited to ONLY those witnesses they used for the indictment and if the Defense brings up new witnesses they are entitled to cross-examine.

Since the full testimony of the witnesses are known, then it is unlikely that any information will lead to new witnesses. Unless one of the Democrats witnesses commits perjury by changing their testimony from the record.

 

[CWayne]

The entire GOP knows Trump is screwed if witnesses are called because he spends most of his Presidency violating the law and abusing his power. That is why they are blocking any trial from happening.

Take your meds.