Master Index of Archived Threads


In-Senate Trial Thread

Edgy MD Dec 18 2019 10:04 AM

How is it that the U.S. has impeached 19 (now 20) federal officials, including removals of eight, without establishing by president or rule exactly what a Senate trial is supposed to look like. I want the whole bit: jury selection, exhibits, witnesses in the dock, motions to dismiss and suppress, disqualifications, cross examinations, etc. Let's do this right.

Edgy MD Dec 30 2019 01:26 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

So, as it looks like this may take a long time coming in getting off the ground, I want to deplore the vaguery of "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments" in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6. How is it that there is no standard for what a trial should look like? Does this really leave the Senate majority with the opportunity and right to fix any trial they are put in a position to hear, in order to queer the result toward the most benevolent outcome? How is that useful? Does the chief justice get a say? I think we long ago should have established that a trial shall be conducted on the terms of federal criminal court or something.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 30 2019 04:22 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Edgy MD wrote: I think we long ago should have established that a trial shall be conducted on the terms of federal criminal court or something. That's an enormously high standard. But an impeachment trial isn't a criminal trial. The president's freedom and liberty isn't at stake. He's not being threatened with jail. He's not at risk of forcibly being placed in an environment where he's separated from society and can no longer decide for himself what he eats, when he eats, when he can go to sleep, when he can watch TV, etc, etc.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 30 2019 05:09 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Hopefully THAT is in his future as well. It certainly ought to be.

MFS62 Dec 30 2019 07:02 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Hopefully THAT is in his future as well. It certainly ought to be. If he wants to retire some day to live in a gated community, I'm sure space can be found here: https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/lvn/index.jsp Later

Lefty Specialist Dec 31 2019 09:24 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Edgy MD wrote: I think we long ago should have established that a trial shall be conducted on the terms of federal criminal court or something. That's an enormously high standard. But an impeachment trial isn't a criminal trial. The president's freedom and liberty isn't at stake. He's not being threatened with jail. He's not at risk of forcibly being placed in an environment where he's separated from society and can no longer decide for himself what he eats, when he eats, when he can go to sleep, when he can watch TV, etc, etc. Precisely. This isn't a trial in a conventional sense. Nancy and Chuck are holding out for a real trial with witnesses, but what I think we're going to get is a lot of speechifying back and forth and then a vote to acquit. The wild card here is Roberts. He can shape this process in a number of ways by allowing and disallowing things.

Edgy MD Dec 31 2019 12:48 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Well, I'm not so much suggesting a federal criminal trial standard (which was just a for-instance, anyhow) for the burden of proof or degree of illegality . I'm suggesting an established standard is needed for rules, jury impaneling, a juror's oath, sequestration, evidentiary admissions, witness calling, etc. Wouldn't it be great if the Senate was sequestered and had no idea to what degree or in what direction opinions were changing nationally or in their district? And therefore were forced to vote without sticking their finger into the wind? I just think there should be a standard. The idea that after all this time, such elements of trial have to be bickered over is kind of weak, no? The rules should be the rules no matter who is briefly in control of the Senate. And they should be robustly enforced not by the Senate itself but by an independent judiciary branch. What is the point of dragging in the chief justice if the Senate majority leader has already fixed the outcome?

batmagadanleadoff Dec 31 2019 01:31 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Most Senate proceedings are free for alls where the controlling party makes It up on the fly. Remember Kavanaugh's confirmation? The GOP Senate whitewashed the whole affair by deciding that the FBI had like 28 seconds to conduct its investigation. If Roberts isnt a partisan hack, he'd recuse Mitch and Graham and any other senator who said they'd be in cahoots with the White House. I suspect, though, that Roberts will mostly be a potted plant at the trial.

Edgy MD Dec 31 2019 01:54 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

He's a lot less of a partisan hack than Chief Justice Rehnquist was, and the latter seemed like a non-factor the last time around, so you are likely right. But after 200 years, making up rules on the fly with a simple majority is kinda stupid, no?

seawolf17 Dec 31 2019 02:09 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Exceptionally so. Except that there's nobody there to stop them, so they don't care.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 10 2020 02:18 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Sen. Susan Collins working with 'fairly small group' of Republicans to ensure witnesses at Trump's impeachment trial Well, there's no way she'll let us down, is there?

Lefty Specialist Jan 10 2020 06:30 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Sen. Susan Collins working with 'fairly small group' of Republicans to ensure witnesses at Trump's impeachment trial Well, there's no way she'll let us down, is there? Hmm. We're at Code Yellow. https://images.dailykos.com/images/660320/large/Warning-System_Collins-Vert_Final_small.jpg?1554148402>

MFS62 Jan 10 2020 07:34 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Of course he will: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-invoke-executive-privilege-block-194407199.html Later

Lefty Specialist Jan 15 2020 01:18 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

These thugs were surveilling the Ambassador to Ukraine, and people were worried enough to warn her to get out of the country. This is creepy stuff. And Giuliani letters saying, in effect, he's working for Trump the man, not the President, and let's get these Biden investigations announced already. And there's still more to come. https://www.salon.com/2020/01/15/bombshell-new-lev-parnas-documents-blow-up-trumps-defense-days-ahead-of-senate-trial/ Mitch will still try his damnedest to sweep it all under the rug.

kcmets Jan 15 2020 02:02 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

It just get filthier and filthier with Rudy. Maybe we should start a Rudy Gets Disbarred Contest.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 15 2020 02:04 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

=kcmets post_id=29783 time=1579122158 user_id=53] It just get filthier and filthier with Rudy.

Shocking, isn't it?

Centerfield Jan 15 2020 03:53 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

I don't think impeachment trials were meant to be actual trials. I think they were put in place in the event a sitting president went so far off the rails that the American public overwhelmingly wanted him removed. People have criticized impeachment as too political. I think it was meant to be political. If 2/3 of the US population wanted him removed, he'd be gone. It's because he has his base that the Republicans are all falling in line. I think if you asked the framers, a President with a legitimate chance of being re-elected was not who they had in mind when impeachment was contemplated.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 15 2020 04:55 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

I think if you asked the framers, a President with a legitimate chance of being re-elected was not who they had in mind when impeachment was contemplated. This is so far removed from anything the Framers could have possibly imagined. And understandably so. Who the hell could predict 250 years into the future? The Constitution was drafted at a time before the internet, before the steam engine, before electricity, before the industrial revolution and planes, trains and automobiles and Deep Throat (the movie). Jeez, if you wanted to work late into the night, you had to do it with candles. Fucking Candles! California didn't even exist. You think the Framers imagined that there'd be a state with a population of almost 40 million that would have the same number of senators as Wyoming, population less than Brooklyn? You think they imagined a senate majority that represents barely 40% of the population or that California has the same population as the 22 least populous states but those 22 states get 40 more electoral votes. It's as fucked up as you could imagine. A senate majority that behaves like a cult and is totally complicit in enabling the most criminal presidential administration in American history. They spew the most outrageous lies every single hour of every single day and then turn around and call the most established elements of the press "fake news". And a huge chunk of the population buys their bullshit.

Centerfield Jan 16 2020 11:02 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

I agree with a lot, maybe even everything you said in your post. It was very hard to imagine that the population density of the states could be so dispararate that the less populous states wielded such disproportionate influence. But I really think that if they knew that roughly half the population were willing to vote for a president's re-election, then that President should not be removed. I don't know, however, if they ever contemplated that a sitting President could not be tried in Court for his crimes.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 16 2020 11:11 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

=Centerfield post_id=29851 time=1579197777 user_id=65] I agree with a lot, maybe even everything you said in your post. It was very hard to imagine that the population density of the states could be so dispararate that the less populous states wielded such disproportionate influence. But I really think that if they knew that roughly half the population were willing to vote for a president's re-election, then that President should not be removed. I don't know, however, if they ever contemplated that a sitting President could not be tried in Court for his crimes.

So the Framers intended that a popular president could do whatever the fuck he wants to do because he's popular?

batmagadanleadoff Jan 16 2020 11:17 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=29855 time=1579198299 user_id=68] =Centerfield post_id=29851 time=1579197777 user_id=65] I agree with a lot, maybe even everything you said in your post. It was very hard to imagine that the population density of the states could be so dispararate that the less populous states wielded such disproportionate influence. But I really think that if they knew that roughly half the population were willing to vote for a president's re-election, then that President should not be removed. I don't know, however, if they ever contemplated that a sitting President could not be tried in Court for his crimes.

So the Framers intended that a popular president could do whatever the fuck he wants to do because he's popular?


And if this is all one big popularity contest, them why even bother with a Senate trial? Let's just have the citizens vote on whether to impeach and then remove.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 16 2020 11:19 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=29863 time=1579198669 user_id=68] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=29855 time=1579198299 user_id=68] =Centerfield post_id=29851 time=1579197777 user_id=65] I agree with a lot, maybe even everything you said in your post. It was very hard to imagine that the population density of the states could be so dispararate that the less populous states wielded such disproportionate influence. But I really think that if they knew that roughly half the population were willing to vote for a president's re-election, then that President should not be removed. I don't know, however, if they ever contemplated that a sitting President could not be tried in Court for his crimes.

So the Framers intended that a popular president could do whatever the fuck he wants to do because he's popular?


And if this is all one big popularity contest, them why even bother with a Senate trial? Let's just have the citizens vote on whether to impeach and then remove.


And if the Framers intended that a president who lost the popular vote by more than three million votes and has an approval rating in the 30s and 40s can't be removed or even impeached, then no president can ever be impeached.

Centerfield Jan 16 2020 11:25 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

I think that the framers intended impeachment to be a vehicle through which a President could be removed if he was acting in a way that was overwhelmingly in contrast to the will of the people. A President that has a strong chance of being re-elected doesn't fall into that category. I think the framers intended a sitting President to be tried for his crimes in a Court of Law, if that situation were to ever occur. And I think that the framers never imagined that the people of this country could ever support such a scumbag as their President. Until 2016, I never imagined it either.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 16 2020 11:32 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

I think that the framers intended impeachment to be a vehicle through which a President could be removed if he was acting in a way that was overwhelmingly in contrast to the will of the people. A President that has a strong chance of being re-elected doesn't fall into that category. So the people get to decide if a President can violate the Constitution? I think the framers intended a sitting President to be tried for his crimes in a Court of Law, if that situation were to ever occur. Then there'd be no need for the House to pass articles of impeachment. The president would be indicted by a grand jury and tried for his crimes. Also, impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't have to include actual crimes. A President need not engage in criminal conduct to commit an impeachable offense. And I think that the framers never imagined that the people of this country could ever support such a scumbag as their President. Yes.

Centerfield Jan 16 2020 11:45 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Ultimately, that's what it comes down to. Even if Trump were removed, the base that he's mobilized would just vote for the next scumbag to outlaw abortion and target minorities. We have to ask ourselves how we allowed so many good people in our country to feel so alienated that they would follow such a snake. Or we have to come to grips with the fact that half the people in our country suck.

seawolf17 Jan 16 2020 12:38 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

=Centerfield post_id=29882 time=1579200357 user_id=65] Ultimately, that's what it comes down to. Even if Trump were removed, the base that he's mobilized would just vote for the next scumbag to outlaw abortion and target minorities. We have to ask ourselves how we allowed so many good people in our country to feel so alienated that they would follow such a snake. Or we have to come to grips with the fact that half the people in our country suck.

Absolutely. You could send Trump, Pence, and Mitch to Mars, and it wouldn't change the fact that an alarmingly large portion of this country are utter shitheads.



What we *need* to do is mobilize enough of the people left with half a brain -- and there are, unquestionably, more of us than of the shitheads -- and get them into a voting booth in November, and at the same time, make sure that between now and then, make sure that the shitheads who *are* in power right now haven't rigged the system beyond repair.

Edgy MD Jan 16 2020 01:13 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Although wasn't his vote total more representative of, like, 20% of the country?

batmagadanleadoff Jan 16 2020 01:46 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Edgy MD wrote: Although wasn't his vote total more representative of, like, 20% of the country? So what? The way things are going, 20% of the population could probably vote a Senate majority. WAPO is running a series --about once a month-- on giving DC and PR their statehood. One of the running themes in that series is how pathetic the Dems are on this issue -- which they are. It's like rooting for the Washington Generals. If DC and PR leaned red, they'd've been granted statehood years ago. Instead , on those rare occasions when the topic comes up, Mitch McConnell shouts "socialism" and everybody laps it up because this is the country we now live in.

Edgy MD Jan 16 2020 05:09 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

So, buttons.

LWFS Jan 16 2020 05:55 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

=Centerfield post_id=29871 time=1579199141 user_id=65] I think the framers intended a sitting President to be tried for his crimes in a Court of Law, if that situation were to ever occur.

Now, I may be just a simple country non-Constitutional-lawyer, but ah reckon that the impeachment process tells you exactly the opposite-- as I understand it, that a mechanism exists to remove a prez/veep/judge from office implies that you don't want to prosecute someone who's got state-vital duties to carry out. As one doesn't risk life, liberty, or property in the process (as in criminal court), it's considered less of a distraction/impediment with respect to Presidential duties. (Practically speaking, of course... that ain't necessarily so.)

Lefty Specialist Jan 17 2020 10:18 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

=Centerfield post_id=29882 time=1579200357 user_id=65] Ultimately, that's what it comes down to. Even if Trump were removed, the base that he's mobilized would just vote for the next scumbag to outlaw abortion and target minorities. We have to ask ourselves how we allowed so many good people in our country to feel so alienated that they would follow such a snake. Or we have to come to grips with the fact that half the people in our country suck.

My fear is the next Republican president will be Trumpish but more competent at it. So many norms have been smashed that the next one to get a grip on power could take us to even darker places, enabled by a compliant media that only obsesses about Democratic failings and ignores Republican ones.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 17 2020 10:33 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

I've had similar fears. Decades from now, will the Trump Administration be seen as some kind of weird anomaly, or will it turn out to be the template for many 21st Century presidents?

Lefty Specialist Jan 24 2020 09:23 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Take 8 minutes and 39 seconds out of your day to watch this. It's worth it. https://twitter.com/i/status/1220559375938609152

MFS62 Jan 26 2020 08:30 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

A Troglodyte Trumpite (isn't that redundant?)at work said he watched yesterday's proceedings and said the defense lawyers totally explained the background of why Trump withheld the aid. I said 'Oh, so they gave the reasons WHY he committed a crime? He shut up and walked away. Later

Lefty Specialist Jan 27 2020 05:54 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

John Bolton, eager to goose his book sales, reveals to the Times that the 'drug deal' was Trump directly tying the release of $400 million in military aid to Ukraine to an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. Republicans will pretend this does not exist and will vote to have no witnesses after throwing a lot of bullshit in the air over the next two days, completing the coverup/exoneration.

ashie62 Jan 27 2020 07:08 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Couldn't Bolton have been forthcoming, like months ago?

LWFS Jan 27 2020 09:13 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

The article came as a result of leaks in the vetting process, following Bolton submitting the manuscript to the WH in late December. Which means that-- SHOCKER-- the President's lawyers presumably had access to this information and are outright lying when they're saying that there is no proof of Trump's withholding of aid being investigation-announcement-tied/Bolton has no information on this, as they did Saturday.

Edgy MD Jan 28 2020 06:58 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

=ashie62 post_id=30538 time=1580134127 user_id=90] Couldn't Bolton have been forthcoming, like months ago?

Well, sure. But if we're in a position of demanding that people do what they could have done, had they cared about their country, the line is long, and until further notice, it seemingly includes every last Republican in the Senate.



And those who did do what they could have done, and spoke out under oath, are getting slandered and trashed, and many of them are responding by patriotically waiting and hoping for a chance to speak out again in the Senate.

Lefty Specialist Jan 29 2020 08:55 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Pressure mounting for Bolton to testify. Mitch is desperate to block this even though 75% of Americans want to hear from witnesses. I'm just wondering how Lucy McConnell is is going to snatch the football away from us this time.

kcmets Jan 29 2020 08:58 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

=ashie62 post_id=30538 time=1580134127 user_id=90]Couldn't Bolton have been forthcoming, like months ago?

Marketing 101, book to hit the shelves on 3/17. Now rumored to bump

up it's release to sometime in February.

TransMonk Jan 29 2020 09:42 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

I think Mitch will hold the line. Other than the Garland gamble, he plays the short game rather than the long. I expect this to be over Friday and for DJT to take victory laps during his Super Bowl interview and the SOTU address next week. The Senators will deal with the Bolton-book fallout later...and it may doom them then. But every news cycle packs an eternity's worth of info and disinfo. They will hope that people will forget due to some other shiny object. Remember when we were warring with Iran three weeks ago? I hope I'm wrong, but Trump's reign has been dreadfully predictable.

Ceetar Jan 29 2020 09:46 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

And none of it matters because they're going to interrogate and harass minority voters, detain them at borders, threaten to deport them, unregister them to vote, and who knows what else.

Lefty Specialist Jan 31 2020 06:16 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Senate votes 51-49 to cover it all up. Please make them pay in November, America.

MFS62 Jan 31 2020 06:55 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Lefty Specialist wrote: Senate votes 51-49 to cover it all up. Please make them pay in November, America. Some pundits are saying that History will look back on the Republicans who participated in this farce of a trial and judge them poorly. But I remember the saying "The winners get to write the History" and am very pessimistic. Later

Edgy MD Jan 31 2020 08:11 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

I never really believed that statement. The writing of history is an ongoing process, and it's not in stone.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 31 2020 11:56 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Well, I dunno how the Dems expect to undo the damage from this criminal administration, but if they dont take extremely radical steps themselves, it won't happen in my lifetime. They've appointed about 200 extremist judges throughout the judiciary, including two at the top. The attorney general is an out and out crook himself - and he enforces the law. And Trump was just given a green light to do whatever the fuck he wants to do. We're gonna have Idi Amin like elections where Trump'll tell the GOP controlled swing states not to even bother tallying the votes-- just make up the numbers. Don't like it? Whaddya gonna do about it, Dems? Whine to Rachel Maddow?

Fman99 Feb 01 2020 05:28 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

I'm saddened and embarrassed by this whole damn thing. What a floating joke of a representative government this Senate is.

Edgy MD Feb 01 2020 10:05 AM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Can they refuse to cast a vote in the verdict?

kcmets Feb 01 2020 12:24 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

I heard it floated somewhere there are some who feel they shouldn't show up and just let the vote be 53-0 or whatever the final number is and fuck 'em. I don't know if that's even a real option, but it would be kind of amusing.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 01 2020 03:18 PM Re: In-Senate Trial Thread

Who knows? Maybe tomorrow, Trump'll call Ukraine and tell President Zelensky to dig up dirt on Biden, or Trump'll have Zelensky killed. Or Trump'll have Russia bomb Ukraine. If he hasn't done so already.