Impeachment 2.0

You guys are arguing lawyer prattle (poorly may I add) that belongs in a courtroom. The senate trial of impeachment is a totally different process and they set their own standards. It’s political in nature.

All the talk about witnesses and due process and the Brandenburg standard and even intent of inciting doesn’t truly matter because there is no legal standard the senate must follow because there is no appeal process.

Regardless. Trump is a loser and a reject.
 
UsualName said:
You guys are arguing lawyer prattle (poorly may I add) that belongs in a courtroom. The senate trial of impeachment is a totally different process and they set their own standards. It’s political in nature.

All the talk about witnesses and due process and the Brandenburg standard and even intent of inciting doesn’t truly matter because there is no legal standard the senate must follow because there is no appeal process.

Regardless. Trump is a loser and a reject.
More...

Not necessarily true that questions of intent and witnesses are not relevant simply because it is not a criminal trial.

Impeachment jurors are entirely free to rely upon whatever standards seem reasonable- including the lessons and requirements and learnings from criminal processes even if not totally similar. Many fair-minded impeachment jurors need to satisfy themselves that there was intent to incite as part of their decisionmaking and from there they arrive at the need for testimony and evidence. The fact that it is not a criminal proceedings does not make them Karnac. Similarly they may and should need to establish and confirm in their own mind that certain events that were alleged to happen, did in fact happen as alleged and that also gives rise to the need for evidence and testimony as part of a sound decisionmaking process even if not required by criminal code.

It is not entirely true either to say that the process is political in nature. It functions within a political atmosphere but the original constitutional charge was to be deliberative but following the constitution is not something the dems do. El Cocho for example likes to refer to and harken back to the Clinton trial in support of the whole thing being a political shiite-show. But even in that process some republicans, such as Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins voted to acquit Clinton- arguing that while he clearly committed a crime it did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense requiring removal. So there is a long history of many Senators taking elements of process seriously and demanding proof and evidence and in return offering thinking and judgement back into the process. Something that is lost on the current leftist trash in the country.
 
gwb-trading said:
More...
GOP didn't care because they personally were safe from the mob and don't care if the dems could be in mortal danger.

also had to google skrillex Cruz:
TedCruzHaircut.jpg
 
ph1l said:
I'm no lawyer, but it sounds like the charge is saying Trump said some things on January 6 that caused the riots. That means all the other things he did before January 6 (other than publicizing the rally) and his attitude after the riots started are irrelevant for the charges.
More...
This is very convincing. You are definitely not a lawyer.
 
Here4money said:
GOP didn't care because they personally were safe from the mob and don't care if the dems could be in mortal danger.

also had to google skrillex Cruz:
TedCruzHaircut.jpg
More...

They smart up very fast after the January 6th insurrection.

Next time, the GOP will be escorted out the front door and let them manage the insurrectionists while the Dems go out the back door under the protection of armed security (National Guard). :D

wrbtrader
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top