• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread A second impeachment

JoeMorgue said:
*Confused* The article? It's straight off the Reuters wire, no paywall or registration of any kind.
Click to expand...

It still requests name address, age, e-mail .. and more. I suppose I could fill in fake data, but ..

Hans

ETA: OK, it's an EU thing. Found an "allow all button, this time".
 
Last edited:
Now reading that They could "Start the Trial' on TUesday, but delay the actual proceedings for any oength of time...a lot like how normal trials operate. where the formal opening of a trial is often weeks before the real proceddings begin.
 
If I were a senator (a democratic one) I wouldn't vote to convict Trump. It is hard to take the house seriously when they do not take the process seriously. They haven't interviewed witnesses. They didn't subpoena any records or communications. For something so important thet have put very little effort into it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If I were a senator (a democratic one) I wouldn't vote to convict Trump. It is hard to take the house seriously when they do not take the process seriously. They haven't interviewed witnesses. They didn't subpoena any records or communications. For something so important thet have put very little effort into it.
Click to expand...

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

What other information would they need to make a rational decision?
 
Darat said:
I am pretty sure that most of them will have watched and read about the insurrection.

What other information would they need to make a rational decision?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is not how impeachment works.

If you wish to create a new process then there are mechanisms in the USA condition to do so, good luck with your campaign.
 
Darat said:
That is not how impeachment works.

If you wish to create a new process then there are mechanisms in the USA condition to do so, good luck with your campaign.
Click to expand...

If we are not using a legal standard, then I would default to skepticism. Certainly the events are correlated. How does one prove causation in this scenario?
 
BobTheCoward said:
If we are not using a legal standard, then I would default to skepticism. Certainly the events are correlated. How does one prove causation in this scenario?
Click to expand...

I am using the standard of the USA Constitution, which is the base for all legal standards in regards to a president being impeached. Are you claiming non-constitutional standards should be used?
 
BobTheCoward said:
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.
Click to expand...
I disagree.There's plenty of evidence for the charge, which is what the House is tasked with. They don't need to subpoena witnesses and communications to evaluate events that occurred in public. Their job is the charge, not the trial. We heard the president utter inflammatory lies, and saw and heard his followers commit an act of rebellious terrorism while uttering their adherence to those inflammatory lies. If there are subtleties beyond what everyone in the nation saw and heard, the time for them to be explained, or pulled out of the hind ends of the defendants, is in the trial, not the charge. What you are advocating is that the Senators do exactly what they did last time, which is to pre-determine the result of the trial before it's taken place, in other words that they do not take their job seriously.
 
Darat said:
I am using the standard of the USA Constitution, which is the base for all legal standards in regards to a president being impeached. Are you claiming non-constitutional standards should be used?
Click to expand...

The Constitution doesn't specify a standard for impeachment.
 
bruto said:
I disagree.There's plenty of evidence for the charge, which is what the House is tasked with. They don't need to subpoena witnesses and communications to evaluate events that occurred in public. Their job is the charge, not the trial. We heard the president utter inflammatory lies, and saw and heard his followers commit an act of rebellious terrorism while uttering their adherence to those inflammatory lies. If there are subtleties beyond what everyone in the nation saw and heard, the time for them to be explained, or pulled out of the hind ends of the defendants, is in the trial, not the charge. What you are advocating is that the Senators do exactly what they did last time, which is to pre-determine the result of the trial before it's taken place, in other words that they do not take their job seriously.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
It does not set a standard for guilt.
Click to expand...

Impeachment is about a judgement made by defined groups of elected representatives of the USA government. Since you are posting about a “standard for guilt” I take it you have not read the relevant part of the USA constitution? There is nothing in the constitution that would allow for the changes you wish to be made to the constitution without the constitution being amended. If you want to change what impeachment is I again refer you to the mechanisms in the USA constitution for making such changes.
 
Darat said:
Impeachment is about a judgement made by defined groups of elected representatives of the USA government. Since you are posting about a “standard for guilt” I take it you have not read the relevant part of the USA constitution? There is nothing in the constitution that would allow for the changes you wish to be made to the constitution without the constitution being amended. If you want to change what impeachment is I again refer you to the mechanisms in the USA constitution for making such changes.
Click to expand...

I didn't propose a change. I said I would vote no unless there was a good argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom