The oath to take the public office they preside over includes upholding the Constitution... which most certainly includes performing their role as judge regarding the guilt/innocence of the accused based upon the facts and testimony brought into evidence... — creativesoul

But it's the Senator's role to interpret and apply the constitution during an impeachment trial. If what @Hanover suggests is true, then the Senate essentially has the authority to do whatever they want, where the only recourse is voting them out (even if they gerrymander or seek to rig elections in their favor apparently). If the senate gets to decide to any degree what the constitution means or when it should be ignored, then yes, that's fucked. Another level of irony given it's the republicans who are obsessed with appealing to founder's intentions in constitutional interpretation...

The oath to take the public office they preside over includes upholding the Constitution... which most certainly includes performing their role as judge regarding the guilt/innocence of the accused based upon the facts and testimony brought into evidence...
— creativesoul

But it's the Senator's role to interpret and apply the constitution during an impeachment trial. — VagabondSpectre

What sort of interpretation could possibly include proclaiming what McConnell publicly proclaimed prior to trial? He publicly announced that his position was already aligned with the accused. The accused has been openly publicly denouncing the entire constitutional process and ordering specific people(witnesses) to not honor the process itself...

Everyone is equal under the law. No one is above the law.

I'm thankful for the honesty that people are showing (as well as for their civility).

I can just hardly restrain my grin when, at this stage, Republicans will still make an appeal to the constitution, let alone the idea of separation of powers, to argue that impeachment is a useless partisan tool.

Is it mere shortsightedness? Self service?

Or is it just the classic miasma of emotional dogma?

What Mitch said is definitely "unconsitutitional" (in that it controverts the constitution in rhetoric), but whether or not that speech could be criminal is shiftier than Schiff. (essentially he has a right to his opinions, and to voice them freely). His actions during the trial, and what can be proven about his actions pertaining to the trial, and what the consequences could theoretically be for such behavior in an impeachment trial, are matters yet to unfold and to be decided by a Supreme Court review (likely). Problematically, he likely will not be telecasting his collusion with Trump's defense team, so we won't be able to prove a lick of it (and again, there are not formalized laws dealing with such behavior in a senate-run trial to begin with, so it all refers back to what the Supreme Court might say about it).

It's called gaslighting.

(And the proper response to a gaslighter is not to argue reasonably, which just gives them more fuel, but simply to tell them to fuck off.)

Edit: I'm referring to Republican politicians here btw, not suggesting we insult our esteemed interlocutors in this discussion. *Ahem*.

:up:

But I much prefer a goold old fashioned pants-yank :)

Let the whole world see their resplendent new robes...

But it's the Senator's role to interpret and apply the constitution during an impeachment trial. If what Hanover suggests is true, then the Senate essentially has the authority to do whatever they want, where the only recourse is voting them out (even if they gerrymander or seek to rig elections in their favor apparently). If the senate gets to decide to any degree what the constitution means or when it should be ignored, then yes, that's fucked. Another level of irony given it's the republicans who are obsessed with appealing to founder's intentions in constitutional interpretation... — VagabondSpectre

Your attempt to directly analogize a judicial proceeding with an impeachment fails on many levels. The President has been accused vaguely of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that the House has itemized as "abuse of power" and "obstruction." There are no specific elements that must be proved for those crimes and they were created by the House ex post facto. That is the way impeachment is done, legally and constitutionally, but in a real judicial hearing it would be fundamentally unfair. There would also be a clear burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt), but here none is specified, a serious problem for an accused. There are also no rules of evidence, meaning hearsay, character attacks and the like might be admissible, as might be consideration of evidence outside the proceeding.

This is, by its nature, a free for all dependent upon the subjective whims of the Senate, very doubtfully reviewable by the courts. Impeachment is democracy turning in on itself, where our representatives vote out our representatives. It's therefore designed to be nearly impossible, requiring both houses to agree, with the upper house requiring a super majority. The brick wall the Democrats are running into was built there over 200 years ago, and I'm thankful for that. The ballot box is where revolutions happen in democracies not by the party that lost a most bitter election.

His actions during the trial, and what can be proven during the trial, and what the consequences could theoretically be for such behavior in an impeachment trial, are matters yet to unfold and to be decided by a Supreme Court review (likely). — VagabondSpectre

You just really don't fully understand the judicial process. How does this case get to the Court? Who has standing to bring it? Someone is going to sue a Senator for failing to exercise his discretion in what they believe required (under what law?) and they're going to do what? File for equitable relief (a writ of mandamus) or they're going to ask for money damages? Are you moving for contempt? You think a judge can disqualify a Senator? You just don't realize how little sense you're making.

Don't mind Hanover, he's just lawyering from a shit-igloo. — Baden

No, the problem is I'm right, even if the Democrats are right that Trump deserves removal. The Senate gets to be wrong and that'll be the final word. I'd say the same thing if the Senate removed an honest President for no good reason at all. This idea that there is a philosopher king protecting us from our dumb ass selves is just the silly stuff of philosophy forums.

This is, by its nature, a free for all dependent upon the subjective whims of the Senate, very doubtfully reviewable by the courts. — Hanover

So when the trial begins, the senators are going to swear an oath to uphold their subjective whims?

You just really don't fully understand the judicial process. How does this case get to the Court? Who has standing to bring it? Someone is going to sue a Senator for failing to exercise his discretion in what they believe required (under what law?) and they're going to do what? File for equitable relief (a writ of mandamus) or they're going to ask for money damages? Are you moving for contempt? You think a judge can disqualify a Senator? You just don't realize how little sense you're making. — Hanover

They could always be impeached for it (which would also happen in the senate... See the problem of partisanship being applied to impeachment?) Senatorial whims have nothing to do with it. They're oath bound to uphold the law... Impeachment is the primary tool we have for dealing with representatives who violate the law, subvert the constitution, or betray the the people...

Your attempt to directly analogize a judicial proceeding with an impeachment fails on many levels. The President has been accused vaguely of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that the House has itemized as "abuse of power" and "obstruction." There are no specific elements that must be proved for those crimes and they were created by the House ex post facto. That is the way impeachment is done, legally and constitutionally, but in a real judicial hearing it would be fundamentally unfair. There would also be a clear burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt), but here none is specified, a serious problem for an accused. There are also no rules of evidence, meaning hearsay, character attacks and the like might be admissible, as might be consideration of evidence outside the proceeding. — Hanover

So let me get this straight:

The founders gave the senate the power of "impeachment", the most critical and sensitive type of judicial proceedings in the land, which ought to be carried out with the highest possible degree of care and and impartiality (because it affects the welfare of everyone, and the health of the nation), because they expected them to just hold mock trials based on partisan whim?

The President has been accused vaguely of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that the House has itemized as "abuse of power" and "obstruction." — Hanover

There are thousands of pages, and many hours, of witness testimony, which attest in enormous detail to Trump’s attempt to extort a foreign power by withholding aid to elicit help for political gain. Many of those witnesses were appointed by Trump and are generally witnesses of repute and professional standing. Really, the evidence against Trump is overwhelming, which is why the Republicans can’t defend him. All they can do is attack the process and obfuscate. Like you are doing.

What sort of precedent would be set, if we were to allow a president of the United States to publicly degrade and denounce a clearly outlined Constitutional process; all of which he himself swore to uphold to the best of his ability?

The Constitution is the only tool that can be used to remove one who is unfit from the office of the presidency. A corrupt president who has acted in impeachable ways will attempt to divert public attention away from this fact of American government. A president whose been falsely accused knows that there is no evidence otherwise. I mean, it's not like he's walking black at night! A president who faithfully executes the powers afforded to the office must allow the impeachment process to be enacted by those with the power to do so. That holds good regardless of innocence/guilt.

What sort of precedent would be set if the president ordered people within his administration to not honor an official subpoena to appear as an integral part of a constitutional process that the president himself has sworn to uphold?

That is to use your power as a means to obstruct and/or otherwise impede an ongoing constitutional process. It is to interfere with the specific intent of not allowing someone to tell their story about the president's own behaviour(which is precisely what's being investigated). It is to impede and/or obstruct the investigation.

That's precisely what this president has done. This behaviour screams for proper privately intrusive investigation. No one is above the law, Mr. President.

This particular process is one of emergency measure that only need be enacted in times when the president's behaviour leaves no reasonable doubt that he is not fit to be occupying that public office; that he is not faithfully executing the powers granted to the office of the presidency. Allowing the other braches of government to do their job, especially when it is such a specific job that only arises under very specific conditions - such as carefully investigating the president - is something that all presidents must do.

That's precisely what this president is not doing.



The impeachment process is the only defense that this republican nation has against someone who thinks, believes, and publicly says that he can get away with and/or do whatever he wants to do, because he is the president.

That is our president.



What sort of precedent would be set if the very parties responsible for dutifully enacting the closing proceedings laid out within these constitutional measures... these impeachment process guidelines... were to know that the above were true, and subsequently refused to faithfully enact those duties? What if they neglected to execute one particular responsibility bestowed upon them and only them... to look at the charges levied against the president by means of weighing all the relevant evidence, including the testimony of the very people which this president ordered to not appear in spite of subpoena?

What kind of precedent are we setting here?

Mitch McConnell knows all this. By not allowing these witnesses to appear and give testimony about the charges he is himself is complicit in the obstruction charge as well as dereliction of his own sworn duties, impeachment responsibilities notwithstanding...

:up: Eloquently said. If it were Kazakhstan or Outer Dingbat, then it would still be regrettable, but not so alarming. But it’s America :cry:

But isn't it cool that presidents can use the state apparatus to subvert the democratic process and give themselves an unfair advantage in upcoming elections? Isn't the right to do that what we should really be protecting?

*Squirts gas over American public. Grabs Zippo.*

t was only a matter of time before they impeached Trump for word crimes. It was too difficult for them to find actual crimes, so they reduced themselves to scouring his statements for transgressions of speech, and then lying about them to make them seem worse than they are. — NOS4A2

Sorry, but word crimes are actual crimes, especially when you're the president of the United States of America, because your words actually have power.

Apparently the House, having no respect for the most fundamental of Constitutional principles, namely the separation if powers, refuses to cede the power to the Senate to hold its trial as it sees fit. — Hanover

Why is it not the discretion of the House, to deliver the papers when they see fit? It does not make sense that the Senate can force the House to deliver the papers at any particular time.

Republicans do know where they have to stand. During Nixon's time, they were far more confident where they stood. They could throw away Nixon and be confident that they would have enough popular support in election (even if the Dems got Carter later). Now they aren't so confident about themselves anymore, hence they will defend to the last man Trump, even if they hate the guy privately. — ssu

What does this say, that the Republicans are convinced that they cannot come up with a better candidate than Trump? That's pathetic.

The President has been accused vaguely of "high crimes and misdemeanors" — Hanover

The accusation is not at all vague, it's very clear. The evidence presented is somewhat vague though, because key witnesses have not yet testified.

Impeachment is democracy turning in on itself, where our representatives vote out our representatives. — Hanover

And Mr. Putin has an extremely rejoiceful Christmas!!!

There are thousands of pages, and many hours, of witness testimony, which attest in enormous detail to Trump’s attempt to extort a foreign power by withholding aid to elicit help for political gain. Many of those witnesses were appointed by Trump and are generally witnesses of repute and professional standing. Really, the evidence against Trump is overwhelming, which is why the Republicans can’t defend him. All they can do is attack the process and obfuscate. Like you are doing. — Wayfarer

And this is non-responsive to my post. My comment relates to the vague Constitutional standard and the legal description of the allegations contained in the articles, not the factual basis of the allegations.

For example, if you're charged with theft, there will be a clear law setting forth the several criteria that must be met for a theft to occur. The jury willl then determine if the facts establish a theft.

In an impeachment, there are no such criteria to be met. There's just a vague Constitutional standard that the House then sets forth into a more specific allegation after the offense is committed (ex post facto). Whether the House's articles actually describe a "high crime and misdemeanor" will remain an open question for each Senator to answer.

You act like there's this clear impeachment process, yet one doesn't exist. If there is one, why is the House trying to negotiate a process with the Senate? In a courtroom, the State doesn't have to negotiate a procedure with the accused. Explain that.

For example, if you're charged with theft, there will be a clear law setting forth the several criteria that must be met for a theft to occur. The jury willl then determine if the facts establish a theft.

In an impeachment, there are no such criteria to be met. There's just a vague Constitutional standard that the House then sets forth into a more specific allegation after the offense is committed (ex post facto). Whether the House's articles actually describe a "high crime and misdemeanor" will remain an open question for each Senator to answer. — Hanover

You're just making stuff up. There is no "clear law" setting forth the criteria of theft, or any such crime, just like there is no clear criteria for high crimes and misdemeanors of a president. If there was such clarity the lawyers would be without a job. And it's very clear that there are a lot of lawyers making a lot of money in this world.

My comment relates to the vague Constitutional standard and the legal description of the allegations contained in the articles, not the factual basis of the allegations.

For example, if you're charged with theft, there will be a clear law setting forth the several criteria that must be met for a theft to occur. — Hanover

I think the Mueller investigation showed that this isn't always the case. Part of the reason that no member of the Trump campaign was charged with an offense against 52 U.S. Code § 30121 was "because there was no way to place a value on the information that never materialized at the Trump Tower meeting." The law just doesn't provide any criteria for "other thing of value."

In an impeachment, there are no such criteria to be met. There's just a vague Constitutional standard that the House then sets forth into a more specific allegation after the offense is committed (ex post facto). Whether the House's articles actually describe a "high crime and misdemeanor" will remain an open question for each Senator to answer.

Although that's true, they can refer to actual laws being broken which does make it much less of an open question. For example refusing to comply with subpoenas which is an offense against 18 U.S. Code § 1505. So although the first article of impeachment is somewhat vague, the second is pretty clearly defined.

Why is it not the discretion of the House, to deliver the papers when they see fit? It does not make sense that the Senate can force the House to deliver the papers at any particular time. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is, and when they do, the President will be impeached, but not before. As you guys have gone on and on describing the great need for this impeachment and congratulated one another on each other's rhetoric, you'd think the House would actually impeach this President instead of playing politics.

You're just making stuff up. There is no "clear law" setting forth the criteria of theft, or any such crime, just like there is no clear criteria for high crimes and misdemeanors of a president. If there was such clarity the lawyers would be without a job. And it's very clear that there are a lot of lawyers making a lot of money in this world. — Metaphysician Undercover

The Georgia law on theft, for example:

"A person commits the offense of theft by taking when he unlawfully takes or, being in lawful possession thereof, unlawfully appropriates any property of another with the intention of depriving him of the property, regardless of the manner in which the property is taken or appropriated.".

Each provision of this statute must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If a statue is unclear or vague, it will be struck down as unconstitutionally void for vagueness. As you can imagine, if the government were permitted to vaguely define laws, the citizens would never know what is legal or not, and could be subject to unpredictable prosecutions.

As you guys have gone on and on describing the great need for this impeachment and congratulated one another on each other's rhetoric, you'd think the House would actually impeach this President instead of playing politics. — Hanover

Don't class me as "you guys", I've already accepted and mentioned political strategy which the House Democrats might be employing. Political strategy is a big part of the political process. There's no problem there. It's when you take that strategy beyond acceptable, or lawful practises (Nixon for example), that there is a problem.

...when he unlawfully takes.. — Hanover

That looks circular to me. Where's the "clear law" setting forth the criteria of theft? To say that theft occurs when someone unlawfully takes something does not provide a clear law of when theft occurs. your "law" is self referential. The law is broken when someone acts unlawfully. What determines "unlawfulness" in this instance? That is what is required here.

Although that's true, they can refer to actual laws being broken which does make it much less of an open question. For example refusing to comply with subpoenas which is an offense against 18 U.S. Code § 1505. So although the first article of impeachment is somewhat vague, the second is pretty clearly defined. — Michael

There is a legal means to enforce a Congressionally issued subpoena. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-congress-subpoena-explainer/explainer-congress-no-longer-runs-a-jail-so-just-how-powerful-are-its-subpoenas-idUSKCN1S02K8

The remedy against someone who disputes the legitimacy of a subpoena is enforcement, not the overturning of an election.

That looks circular to me. Where's the "clear law" setting forth the criteria of theft? To say that theft occurs when someone unlawfully takes something does not provide a clear law of when theft occurs. your "law" is self referential. The law is broken when someone acts unlawfully. What determines "unlawfulness" in this instance? That is what is required here. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your suggestion that there is no difference between the vagueness of the impeachment process and the clarity of a criminal prosecution isn't interesting. It's wrong on far too many levels to divert into. It's not a position anyone takes, and to the extent you think I'm arguing that impeachment is invalid because of its distinct standard, you're wrong.

Actually, it's your claim that there is clarity in any criminal trial, which is wrong at the most basic level.. Therefore the division you attempted to create is completely unsubstantiated, and you ought to recognize this.

There is a legal means to enforce a Congressionally issued subpoena. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-congress-subpoena-explainer/explainer-congress-no-longer-runs-a-jail-so-just-how-powerful-are-its-subpoenas-idUSKCN1S02K8 — Hanover

What's the relevance of this? I was just explaining that the grounds for impeachment aren't always "vague" and "open". There are legal standards that can be used should Congress wish to apply them.

The remedy against someone who disputes the legitimacy of a subpoena is enforcement, not the overturning of an election. — Hanover

Impeachment isn't overturning an election.

What the...?

Trump rails against windmills: 'I never understood wind'
John Bowden
TheHill
Dec 2019

Incidentally: On Bullshit

I can only hope that these recent events get enough Americans off their lazy asses to vote. The democratic nominee will be important as well...

Trump stands no chance against Bernie. I'm awaiting those debates, and I hope that they are many and about what's wrong in American politics and how it got to be that way...

Trump is the poster child of corruption in American politics. He's a symptom of much deeper problems. The manifestation of cancer caused by monetary corruption and long standing traditions of glorifying immoral behaviour and rugged individualism.

Sorry, but word crimes are actual crimes, especially when you're the president of the United States of America, because your words actually have power.

What “actual crime” did Trump commit? First it was bribery, extortion, “a classic Mafia-like shakedown” as Schiff called It, and of course the media’s obsequious base followed right along. Now it’s...obstruction of congress? Sorry, but there never was any actual crime to begin with, just a snivelling, well funded political corporation known as the DNC living out its fantasies.