President Trump's Senate Impeachment Options - DISMISS or ACQUIT or FULL-BLOWN TRIAL.

a reply to: carewemust

I know the Constitution calls it an "Impeachment".

But can we just be honest and call it what it really is?

It's a coup attempt. It's an attempt to overthrow a government duly elected in.

Everything about this is a farce. The leftists are using and abusing the Constitution to overthrow Trump.

They are anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-Liberty assholes who want to see the destruction of our country.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The partisan House is accusing Trump of trying to rig an election by wanting to investigate his opponent candidate. Are they not doing the same by a tally investigating Trump? I have to agree, it does seem to be a coup attempt.

Trial. Destroy them all and rebuild.

originally posted by: Onlyyouknow
a reply to: carewemust

I'm with you #3 would be optimal. I don't think they will subject the whistle-leaker to a public hearing; I do wonder if the Senate will be able to hear the whistle-leaker in person in a SCIF as the House did.

I agree with #3, but disagree on the whistle-leaker. He has zero legal right to anonymity, and in fact, he must be subject to direct public testimony under oath. Then the Bidens, then also call all of the Ukraine witnesses to hear testimony on the 2016 election meddling, and let that lead to exposing all of the dem/rep corruption with money laundering etc using Ukraine as the conduit.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: carewemust

It seems odd to me that someone thinks that what Biden did, could somehow excuse Trump from what he did.

It is actually quite simple...

Biden actually did it.

Trump didn't.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Abuse of Power is pretty much the prototypical high crime. So I fail to see how a charge of Abuse of Power does not meet the requirements laid out in the Constitution.

But the devil is in the details.

Define 'abuse of power'.

Now define, specifically, what Trump did that fulfills that definition.

Not opinions, hearsay, etc. Actual, hard facts.

Note: there is zero evidence he did anything even remotely falling into that definition.

As for his claim that the Senate can acquit immediately, I'm not sure that's true either. Looking through the Senate's rules on impeachment trials, it looks like the trial has to proceed, at least partially, before a vote can be taken.

The Senate has the full power of trying impeachments. They can do whatever they want, including changing the rules, if they so desire.

You are aware that is precisely what the House did, right?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

As for his claim that the Senate can acquit immediately, I'm not sure that's true either. Looking through the Senate's rules on impeachment trials, it looks like the trial has to proceed, at least partially, before a vote can be taken.

That depends on the trial rules. From what I am hearing, it sounds like the Senate will consider the hearings already conducted as the main body of evidence. If that is true, and the House Managers cannot make a substantial case for additional testimony, the rules can permit a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence.

Understand there is no evidence thus far that Donald Trump has committed Abuse of Power, unless it can be proven that there is no other legitimate reason to request an investigation into Burisma. In any criminal case, which this certainly is, the accused is to be convicted only upon the establishment of a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." As an example, if someone is accused of robbing a bank they can simply show that the evidence against them is not definite and they have an alibi. It does not matter if the evidence against them indicates it was probably them that robbed the bank, and it does not matter if their alibi is waterproof... all that matters is, is there any reasonable doubt left that they committed the crime?

That is the very basis of our legal system.

This is not a normal courtroom; that is true. But it will function similar to a normal courtroom. All the major players will be there, as specified by the Constitution:

• The judge will be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
  
  
• The jury will be the 100 Senators.
  
  
• The District Attorney will be the US House of Representatives.
  
  
• The defendant will be President Donald John Trump.
  
  
• The lawyers for the prosecution will be the House Managers appointed by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
  
  
• The lawyers for the defense will be whoever Trump decides to send, likely Rudy Guiliani and Jay Sekulow at a minimum.

The same Constitutional rights will be shown to Donald Trump as to any other citizen in a criminal trial: the right to be represented by council, the right to confront the witnesses against him, the right to a speedy and fair trial, and the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. That does not change.

Thank God it doesn't. If the President himself can be stripped of his right to run for office, then every other citizen, me, you, everyone reading this, and everyone they know, can have their rights removed by popular opinion as well. The next time you hear of somebody being shot in the back by a rogue police officer, understand that their misfortune was nothing but a continuation of the impeachment hearings we all watched only a few months ago. So what if the cop shot them without just cause? They were guilty. No court needed, no judge needed, just a pronunciation of guilt and a speedy enforcement of the new form of "justice."

Is one man named Trump worth all that?

TheRedneck

a reply to: carewemust

can i choose option " Z" :

kill them all ?????????????

The dEms, the media and their hateful followers are DREADING the hearing and
DREADING the election

Neither of them will have the outcome that the fascist left are wanting

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: carewemust

It seems odd to me that someone thinks that what Biden did, could somehow excuse Trump from what he did.

If someone does something against the law, they cannot argue that others also broke the law. It does not excuse them of their actions.

It sounds like Guiliani is suggesting that Biden's actions somehow excuse the President. They don't.

In answer to the specific points enumerated:

1. If Bill Clinton's impeachment is valid, and he simply lied about sexual indiscretion, then there is precedent that defines what Trump has done as within the remit of high crimes AND misdemeanors (I have highlighted the word 'and' to emphasize that even a minor misdemeanor is included as grounds for impeachment under the Constitution). The implication that only a high crime is impeachable ignores what is plainly written in the Constitution. There is no such thing as a 'high misdemeanor', if one were to try and argue that point. A misdemeanor is, by definition, of less 'criminality' than a high crime.

2. The Senate must try the case. The Senate are not the judge but sit as jurors. They cannot simply throw out the trial in the same way that jurors cannot stop a trial.

3. The trial must be a full trial. It isn't a popularity vote and evidence must be presented and evaluated. Even if the Bidens had done something wrong, Trump was using a foreign national to attempt to interfere with the 2020 elections by discrediting his opponent. Remember, Trump made similar requests to China and Australia, too. It isn't like his motive was not plainly revealed, or a single instance. Even if Biden was guilty (which would have to be established in an entire separate trial) it does not excuse Trump of what he did.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on several of these points. It appears that the crux of your opinion centers on the motive of Trump's actions--that merely asking Ukraine to investigate the Burisma issue is inherently (and done purely pursuant to) election interference for the simple reason that Hunter--who sits upon Burisma's board--is the son of a Democratic Primary candidate. This is a bit of a leap because you appear to have skipped over a few steps in your analysis.

The most obvious relates to motive, i.e., did Trump take said action in order to influence an election? The mere fact that Biden being somehow linked to a conspiracy of corruption can affect how people perceive him, and thus, affect his electability. However, if in fact there is truth to this conspiracy of corruption, then that changes the motive, doesn't it? The motive is to then to bring an injustice to light, because perhaps the people of who could potentially elect him need to know of this propensity toward corruption by this candidate. Furthermore, the U.S. federal government is actually bound through legislation to fight the rampant corruption that exists in the Ukraine. That fact that Biden's own misdeeds paint him in a negative light would, therefore be a mere collateral consequence of the true motive.

Another key problem with your theory relates to the apparent confusion between the words "interference" and "Influence". Politicians and foreign media outlets take actions that may influence our elections on a regular basis. Our opinions are influenced by articles, and the actions of politicians based upon the value judgements made by the electorate who observe what is happening in the world at large. Is not an incumbent president judged by the electorate based upon his dealings with foreign entities and the reactions of those entities? So yes, naturally, the President's drawing of attention to a possible issue of corruption that is tied to a political rival can influence how people vote, but its the people that still make their own judgements about the issue. That is not the same thing as interfering with an election. To interfere is to " prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly" or to "handle or adjust (something) without permission, especially so as to cause damage". Thus interference with an election means to prevent or damage the election process itself, e.g., tampering with vote counts, hacking voting machines...etc. Thus, saying that Trump interfered with an election is a gross mischaracterization.

Finally, as you pointed out an Article of impeachment may by brought based upon even a minor misdemeanor, in theory. Though I hardly suspect that one would ever be impeached for jay walking. In any event, criminal charges are based upon violations of criminal laws. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but there does not exist a statute against seeking foreign inference with our elections as a result of requesting an investigation. The only statute that I am aware of points to violations occurring for have taking illegal foreign donations or interest in business entities as a form of bribery and other such receipt of actual, monetary value. Thus, even is one were to interpret the President's actions a seeking foreign "interference" it still wouldn't relate to a violation of law.

Option 3.
And everyone testifies. No exceptions on either side.
Both Bidens testify, if subpoenaed.
Bolton, Mulvaney, et al. testify, if subpoenaed.
The WH hands over documents, if subpoenaed.
And none of this executive privilege BS.
Let the truth come out.

Moscow Mitch isn’t remotely trustworthy, but Chief Justice Roberts is a constitutionalist—much better to have him presiding.

originally posted by: Onlyyouknow
a reply to: carewemust

I'm with you #3 would be optimal. I don't think they will subject the whistleblower to a public hearing; I do wonder if the Senate will be able to hear the whistleblower in person in a SCIF as the House did.

One of the first things the Senate needs to do is obtain ALL of the House's closed-session transcripts. Schiff is still holding the Intel Community Inspector General's disposition. Republicans believe he lied about the Schiff/Whistleblower interactions. They are investigating, but a Senate Trial would take it to the next level.

a reply to: AutomateThis1

Right. A Senate trial only allows FACT (first hand) witnesses. Democrats only had 2 of them. Gordon Sondland (good for President Trump) and Colonel Alexander Vindman...who was on the July 24th phone call between Trump and Zelensky.

originally posted by: chr0naut

It seems odd to me that someone thinks that what Biden did, could somehow excuse Trump from what he did.

If someone does something against the law, they cannot argue that others also broke the law. It does not excuse them of their actions.

It comes back to what did Trump do illegal? Was it illegal for Trump to ask for an investigation into Biden, Hillary, 2016 elections etc? The left's logic is because Biden happened to be one of 16 (at the time) candidates he should be untouchable by Trump and anything else is wrong. It is funny they think this way when they felt it was OK for Hillary to pay for an investigation while creating fake narratives on Trump to have the FBI wiretap and use the FICA court etc. NOT while he was just a candidate of a dozen BUT as the Republican nomination..holy crap...we don't see eye to eye on much but if you can't see this then I'm not sure what to think.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: carewemust

It seems odd to me that someone thinks that what Biden did, could somehow excuse Trump from what he did.

If someone does something against the law, they cannot argue that others also broke the law. It does not excuse them of their actions.

It sounds like Guiliani is suggesting that Biden's actions somehow excuse the President. They don't.

As the head of the executive branch of government it is a presidents job to seek out and investigate corruption. This does not change if the corruption is being perpetrated by a political rival. If it did all a nonferrous person need do is become a politician in order to save himself from criminal charges.

As head of the executive branch of government it is the a presidents job to use diplomatic means (withholding aid) to get other countries to act in a manner best for America. Investigating American corruption for example.

Ascertaining Biden's guilt is vitally important to knowing whether Trump abused his power or was carrying out the job he was elected to do.

I would hope option 2 occurs. It would give pause to any minority group in government from taking this path in the future.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xcalibur254

As for his claim that the Senate can acquit immediately, I'm not sure that's true either. Looking through the Senate's rules on impeachment trials, it looks like the trial has to proceed, at least partially, before a vote can be taken.

That depends on the trial rules. From what I am hearing, it sounds like the Senate will consider the hearings already conducted as the main body of evidence. If that is true, and the House Managers cannot make a substantial case for additional testimony, the rules can permit a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence.

Understand there is no evidence thus far that Donald Trump has committed Abuse of Power, unless it can be proven that there is no other legitimate reason to request an investigation into Burisma. In any criminal case, which this certainly is, the accused is to be convicted only upon the establishment of a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." As an example, if someone is accused of robbing a bank they can simply show that the evidence against them is not definite and they have an alibi. It does not matter if the evidence against them indicates it was probably them that robbed the bank, and it does not matter if their alibi is waterproof... all that matters is, is there any reasonable doubt left that they committed the crime?

That is the very basis of our legal system.

This is not a normal courtroom; that is true. But it will function similar to a normal courtroom. All the major players will be there, as specified by the Constitution:

• The judge will be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
  
  
• The jury will be the 100 Senators.
  
  
• The District Attorney will be the US House of Representatives.
  
  
• The defendant will be President Donald John Trump.
  
  
• The lawyers for the prosecution will be the House Managers appointed by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
  
  
• The lawyers for the defense will be whoever Trump decides to send, likely Rudy Guiliani and Jay Sekulow at a minimum.

The same Constitutional rights will be shown to Donald Trump as to any other citizen in a criminal trial: the right to be represented by council, the right to confront the witnesses against him, the right to a speedy and fair trial, and the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. That does not change.

Thank God it doesn't. If the President himself can be stripped of his right to run for office, then every other citizen, me, you, everyone reading this, and everyone they know, can have their rights removed by popular opinion as well. The next time you hear of somebody being shot in the back by a rogue police officer, understand that their misfortune was nothing but a continuation of the impeachment hearings we all watched only a few months ago. So what if the cop shot them without just cause? They were guilty. No court needed, no judge needed, just a pronunciation of guilt and a speedy enforcement of the new form of "justice."

Is one man named Trump worth all that?

TheRedneck

No one man is not worth all that; most especially a man named Trump. This is the part where I am left wondering what is wrong with the Democratic party today; that they would undermine the very core of what should be their party platform in order to give one man his comwupings. Its the ultimate move of cutting ones nose of in order to spite their face.

President Trump calling out the intelligence Community Inspector General before the Senate impeachment trial starts.

mobile.twitter.com...

a reply to: khnum

What are you trying to tell us, Khnum?

a reply to: chr0naut

If the charges are found to be unconstitutional, Justice Roberts can throw them out. The House will need to build a better mousetrap next time.