Split Thread A second impeachment

[BobTheCoward]

Yes you did.

I did not.

 

[Steve]

I didn't propose a change. I said I would vote no unless there was a good argument.

It is highly unlikely that a libertarian would ever be in a position to vote at all, don't you think?

 

[BobTheCoward]

It is highly unlikely that a libertarian would ever be in a position to vote at all, don't you think?

Or a skeptic.

 

[Steve]

Or a skeptic.

No, I do not see any problem with a skeptic being elected to the US senate and in a position to vote on impeachment. Skepticism would be a valuable asset in a senator.

 

[Paul2]

Expert testimony on the psychology of incitement. Testimony of rioters that the speech incited them. Communication in the white house that they were aware, etc etc.

The house is going to argue that it was incitement. If your argument is a shallow, "what more do you need" then don't be upset if I don't think it is sufficient. You need to argue what is the standard, how it meets it, then build that case.

ETA: if you take the approach that there is no standard one should target (because it is a political act) and each person should just look at it, I can't take that as a serious effort.

In a criminal case in our legal system (which an impeachment is not, but, still . . .) not all the evidence needs to be in hand before an indictment is brought. Between the indictment and the trial more evidence can be assembled. It can even be discovered after the trial has begun and still introduced at the trial.

Your criticism of the evidence is a little premature. Once they have presented all the evidence at the trial, then you may well evaluate that evidence as insufficient to convict. But right now, you don't know what evidence they are planning to present.

 

[BobTheCoward]

In a criminal case in our legal system (which an impeachment is not, but, still . . .) not all the evidence needs to be in hand before an indictment is brought. Between the indictment and the trial more evidence can be assembled. It can even be discovered after the trial has begun and still introduced at the trial.

Your criticism of the evidence is a little premature. Once they have presented all the evidence at the trial, then you may well evaluate that evidence as insufficient to convict. But right now, you don't know what evidence they are planning to present.

I do have a sense of how much time it takes for a case in normal court to get to trial and complete. It is very rarely only a couple weeks.

Further, I would be concerned about how much is (legally speaking) hearsay. I'm not necessarily a fan of the hearsay rules and I know they don't apply here, but I think they would have a difficult time threading that needle.

 

[Paul2]

I do have a sense of how much time it takes for a case in normal court to get to trial and complete. It is very rarely only a couple weeks.

Not only is this not a court of law, but it is surely not normal.

Further, I would be concerned about how much is (legally speaking) hearsay. I'm not necessarily a fan of the hearsay rules and I know they don't apply here, but I think they would have a difficult time threading that needle.

This is not a court of law, it's an impeachment trial. I'm not defending hearsay at an impeachment, just that the legal standard does not necessarily apply.

On what basis do you suspect that hearsay might be an issue?

 

[Solitaire]

I am pretty sure that most of them will have watched and read about the insurrection.

Literally watched. They were in the capitol building when it happened.

P. S. Surely BTC knows that fact.

 

[Darat]

I did not.

Are you a sitting Senator?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Not only is this not a court of law, but it is surely not normal.
This is not a court of law, it's an impeachment trial. I'm not defending hearsay at an impeachment, just that the legal standard does not necessarily apply.

On what basis do you suspect that hearsay might be an issue?

A) my point about how long normal court takes is a response to your position that normally evidence is gathered between charges and trial. That window is so significantly shorter here that I find the argument that they can use this window to gather evidence a little weak. It is an extremely short window.

B) Here is my point in more detail. One advantage court has is it has standards for conviction. Even if you disagree with those standards, you can still apply them. In the senate, 100 different senators have 100 different standards for guilt and evidence. Presenting the evidence might not be sufficient if too many senators are using a standard (however arbitrary) that doesn't clear that hurdle.

The house could try and address that by arguing senators should personally adopt a standard they might not currently have. But if you do that, you may also be removing some of your evidence as not meeting that standard.


For example, suppose you tried to deal with intransigent republicans by saying they should adopt the standard of guilt used in US courts. Maybe argue it isn't perfect, but you as a republican senator can claim impartiality.

And then you try to present hearsay....you have created a problem for yourself.


Obviously, this is not an issue if you just say here is our evidence, and use whatever standard for guilt you want. But I think you would want to make an argument to standards at some point.


ETA: of court, this is coming from me. If you tell me to use whatever standard I want in evaluating your argument, you are not going to like the results. You probably would want to tell me what standard I should use. Maybe you have better luck with a bunch of normal people.

 

[Thermal]

SelfAwareWolfing from Greene's announcement of filing for impeachment against President Biden:

I’m proud to be the voice of Republican voters who have been ignored."

Yeah how about that.

 

[bruto]

The house is tasked with serving as the role of pseudo-prosecutor. And the house selects who is serving in that role. Their job is also the trial.In the absence of a standard (reasonable doubt, probable, etc) they are the ones presenting in that situation.

ETA: if a third party served in the prosecutorial role, my position on what the house should have done would be aligned with you.

Even if the indicting and the prosecuting are done by the same party, those are separate jobs, I think. By your standard, no trial could occur unless the trial had already occurred.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Even if the indicting and the prosecuting are done by the same party, those are separate jobs, I think. By your standard, no trial could occur unless the trial had already occurred.

Well, it seems after they send the articles of impeachment, their time to subpoena witnesses and evidence is much shorter.

 

[Paul2]

A) my point about how long normal court takes is a response to your position that normally evidence is gathered between charges and trial. That window is so significantly shorter here that I find the argument that they can use this window to gather evidence a little weak. It is an extremely short window.

I think we have all the evidence we need. Your earlier point about bringing in expert witness to testify about how crowds can be incited is spurious. This is not a technical psychological issue. Trump's behavior - not just at the rally, importantly, but even before the election - is a political issue, not a psychological one.

Furthermore, I've made the point above (or in another thread) that if the insurrectionists had never broken into the Capitol, Trump would still be guilty of the impeachable offense of urging people to try to get Pence to not do his constitutional duty. That, all by itself, is sufficient for impeachment. The President is supposed to make sure that the Constitution is followed, and he did the exact opposite of that, in more ways than just urging Pence not to do his Constitutional duty.

B) Here is my point in more detail. One advantage court has is it has standards for conviction. Even if you disagree with those standards, you can still apply them. In the senate, 100 different senators have 100 different standards for guilt and evidence. Presenting the evidence might not be sufficient if too many senators are using a standard (however arbitrary) that doesn't clear that hurdle.

The house could try and address that by arguing senators should personally adopt a standard they might not currently have. But if you do that, you may also be removing some of your evidence as not meeting that standard.


For example, suppose you tried to deal with intransigent republicans by saying they should adopt the standard of guilt used in US courts. Maybe argue it isn't perfect, but you as a republican senator can claim impartiality.

And then you try to present hearsay....you have created a problem for yourself.


Obviously, this is not an issue if you just say here is our evidence, and use whatever standard for guilt you want. But I think you would want to make an argument to standards at some point.

You're arguing as if the issue of the standard of evidence is somehow in question when you have a video of a person in the bank, with a gun, demanding money, getting the money, and while walking out showing the cameras a picture of his driver's license with the picture, name, and address all clearly legible and visible. We have Trump on video over and over again trying to subvert the election.

 

[Darat]

Well, it seems after they send the articles of impeachment, their time to subpoena witnesses and evidence is much shorter.

And? You are suggesting that they shouldn’t follow the constitution and substitute your standards for the constitution. Why should they follow your unconstitutional suggestions?

 

[BobTheCoward]

You're arguing as if the issue of the standard of evidence is somehow in question when you have a video of a person in the bank, with a gun, demanding money, getting the money, and while walking out showing the cameras a picture of his driver's license with the picture, name, and address all clearly legible and visible. We have Trump on video over and over again trying to subvert the election.

But there can be a standard where that is not sufficient.

But you also made the argument that what Trump did is impeachable. Based on what? Even if I conceded he is guilty of incitement under certain criteria, how do you convince someone that your criteria for impeachment is correct?

 

[BobTheCoward]

And? You are suggesting that they shouldn’t follow the constitution and substitute your standards for the constitution. Why should they follow your unconstitutional suggestions?

Constitution doesn't specify how they present their argument. That is senate rules.

 

[Vixen]

Seems Trump is unlikely to be convicted as it will need 17 Republicans to vote in favour (assuming all the Democrats do). Only ten voted for impeachment.

 

[sackett]

Libtardarianists

Constitution doesn't specify how they present their argument. That is senate rules.

don't need no stinkin' constitutions! They slovereign ciddizens all by theyselfs!

 

[Paul2]

But there can be a standard where that is not sufficient.

But you also made the argument that what Trump did is impeachable. Based on what? Even if I conceded he is guilty of incitement under certain criteria, how do you convince someone that your criteria for impeachment is correct?

Based on the evidence already in the public record, as I stated above.

How do I convince someone? That's above my pay grade; I'm talking about what should convince a rational person, given that we have the video of the guy robbing the bank and a clear ID. It's not a court of law;we've got plenty that shows Trump's failure to uphold the Constitution - in spectacular fashion - as his oath of office requires.