• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13
 
BN747
Topic Author
Posts: 7356
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:47 pm

The pieces are all in place -

The House Managers are -

Adam Schiff
Jerrold Nadler
Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus
Val Demings (Fla.), a member of both the Judiciary and Intelligence panels
Zoe Lofgren (Calif.), a senior member of the Judiciary panel and the only member of Congress to have participated in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments.
Reps. Sylvia Garcia (Texas)
Jason Crow (Colo.)

versus

Trump Legal Team
White House counsel Pat Cipollone
Ken Starr - Clinton Impeachment Prosecutor
Alan Dershowitz, the constitutional lawyer
Robert Ray, Starr's successor at the Office of Independent Counsel during the Clinton administration
Personal Attorney Jay Sekulow
Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi
Personal Counsel Jane Raskin

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/1 ... itz-100429


If this is an indication of any kind...it's that this is not going to be slam bam case closed 5 minute process, this is a line up for drawn out protracted event.

That Reality TV show gather serves notice that a lot of egos will be in the room - could this possibly turn into Shark Tank?

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:00 pm

Is Lindsey really going to be a juror? If so, we may as well burn our constitution and let Trump do what he wants. There is no point in the farse of a free and fair government.
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10630
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:17 pm

stl07 wrote:
Is Lindsey really going to be a juror? If so, we may as well burn our constitution and let Trump do what he wants. There is no point in the farse of a free and fair government.


In a perfect world everyone who made pre-statements of obvious partiality would be recused, but that’s not where we are and we’d be left with like 40 Senators lol. It’s going to come down largely to how tight a leash Roberts can hold.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
AirWorthy99
Posts: 429
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:57 pm

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:27 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
stl07 wrote:
Is Lindsey really going to be a juror? If so, we may as well burn our constitution and let Trump do what he wants. There is no point in the farse of a free and fair government.


In a perfect world everyone who made pre-statements of obvious partiality would be recused, but that’s not where we are and we’d be left with like 40 Senators lol. It’s going to come down largely to how tight a leash Roberts can hold.


I never thought I would agree on much with you but here I do. :checkmark: :checkmark:
“In my experience eloquent men are right every bit as often as imbeciles.” Tyrion Lannister
 
jetero
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:41 pm

OJ’s lawyer and Epstein’s bud

And Pam Bondi

Was Judge Janine not available?
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10630
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:46 pm

jetero wrote:
OJ’s lawyer and Epstein’s bud

And Pam Bondi

Was Judge Janine not available?


‘Judge’ Pirro isn’t criminal enough to join the others - her husband was the felon.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
jetero
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:01 am

AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
stl07 wrote:
Is Lindsey really going to be a juror? If so, we may as well burn our constitution and let Trump do what he wants. There is no point in the farse of a free and fair government.


In a perfect world everyone who made pre-statements of obvious partiality would be recused, but that’s not where we are and we’d be left with like 40 Senators lol. It’s going to come down largely to how tight a leash Roberts can hold.


I never thought I would agree on much with you but here I do. :checkmark: :checkmark:


Agreed. Worked well for Paul Manafort. Even the self-professed Always Trumper jurists could cut through all the lies and see the mountains of crime.
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:52 am

jetero wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

In a perfect world everyone who made pre-statements of obvious partiality would be recused, but that’s not where we are and we’d be left with like 40 Senators lol. It’s going to come down largely to how tight a leash Roberts can hold.


I never thought I would agree on much with you but here I do. :checkmark: :checkmark:


Agreed. Worked well for Paul Manafort. Even the self-professed Always Trumper jurists could cut through all the lies and see the mountains of crime.

But these are not just always Trumpers we are talking about. Leningrad Lindsay is leagues beyond that. He probably gives Trump the Bill Clinton each night along with Moscow Mitch
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
jetero
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 4:23 am

Well in the best of all possible worlds we can all agree Trump would be tried by a jury of his peers, none of whom even know who Dan Bongino or Judge Janine is, or can’t even point out where Ukraine is on the map. And there’d be a standard test of basic relevance as to which witnesses could be called. And subpoenas would be enforced.

I mean, that’s what’d happen to me if I were accused of a crime. Couldn’t get my buddies whose balls I was holding on the jury. Why should I expect anything less for the President? Isn’t that what the country was founded on?
 
NIKV69
Posts: 13087
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 5:12 am

Got my popcorn. Wonder what Nadler will do when Trump is acquitted go back to saying he didn't pay his taxes?

Oh BTW Epstein didn't kill himself.
Nikon from day one, Nikon till I die.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 21509
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 5:21 am

NIKV69 wrote:
Got my popcorn. Wonder what Nadler will do when Trump is acquitted go back to saying he didn't pay his taxes?


Or keep bringing facts that he broke law after Constitutional law. That would be my guess, since this is what the impeachment in the House was about the the trial in the Senate is all about.

NIKV69 wrote:
Oh BTW Epstein didn't kill himself.


Pour me a Boli/Stoli, We agree on something!
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4092
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:37 am

Pam Biondi is buds with Lev Parnes...

Alan Dershowitz defended Epstein and made multiple trips to Epstein's paedo island and is accused of rape by Epstein's former child sex slave, Virginia Roberts.

Aaron747 wrote:
It’s going to come down largely to how tight a leash Roberts can hold.


How do you mean?
First to fly the 787-9
 
DLFREEBIRD
Posts: 1201
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:54 am

jetero wrote:
OJ’s lawyer and Epstein’s bud

And Pam Bondi

Was Judge Janine not available?


Trump, hired pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's legal defense team to defend him during his impeachment trial. Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz who in 2008 got Jeffrey Epstein a sweetheart plea deal which allowed Epstein to continue preying on underaged girls. Dershowitz sweetheart deal had Epstein plead guilty to a single charge of procuring a minor. To this day Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz have defended Epstein.



read more here
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01 ... mpeachment
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11917
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:32 am

zkojq wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
It’s going to come down largely to how tight a leash Roberts can hold.


How do you mean?


We will see if the Republicans wipe their asses with all of the constitution, or only with the parts concerning congress.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10630
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:22 am

NIKV69 wrote:
Got my popcorn. Wonder what Nadler will do when Trump is acquitted go back to saying he didn't pay his taxes?

Oh BTW Epstein didn't kill himself.


Did you see the 60 Minutes piece on that? The dude was held, savagely beaten, and choked (not that I care, but that's waaay different from the story given). Obvious to anyone with even a fleeting interest in pathology and forensics. And the guards who were on duty are on multimonth gag order. Beyond fishy - but billionaires expect to get away with whatever.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/did-jeffr ... 020-01-05/
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10630
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:23 am

DLFREEBIRD wrote:
jetero wrote:
OJ’s lawyer and Epstein’s bud

And Pam Bondi

Was Judge Janine not available?


Trump, hired pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's legal defense team to defend him during his impeachment trial. Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz who in 2008 got Jeffrey Epstein a sweetheart plea deal which allowed Epstein to continue preying on underaged girls. Dershowitz sweetheart deal had Epstein plead guilty to a single charge of procuring a minor. To this day Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz have defended Epstein.



read more here
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01 ... mpeachment


Dershowitz: nothing untoward happened on Epstein island because I kept my underwear on. Nexxxxxxt.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14572
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:36 am

What a rogues gallery of legal advisors Trump has assembled. I wouldn't let any of those so-called lawyers for Trump represent me in a court over a parking ticket. I hope they understand they are defending him for charity, not expecting any payment for their services as Trump usually does.

The next and preliminary stage for the trial will occur next week when the Senate reconvenes after bribe collections and campaigning in their States this weekend. There is likely to be ugly battles over the form of procedures, including the length, timing, the number of days of the initial presentations, as to when to vote as to if witnesses are to called at all or if so how many and who. Of course, the cable news stations will give wall to wall presentations of the live events and blow by blow comments like a boxing match. All this will not lead to Trump being removed, but hopefully will make voters think about their choice in the fall elections.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11917
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:08 pm

ltbewr wrote:
What a rogues gallery of legal advisors Trump has assembled. I wouldn't let any of those so-called lawyers for Trump represent me in a court over a parking ticket. I hope they understand they are defending him for charity, not expecting any payment for their services as Trump usually does.


Well, apparently he has a team experienced in getting guilty people off the hook, maybe even by bribing (Eppsteins deal)..so, the perfect team for him.

Betting odds are interesting...

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detai ... first-term

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
jetero
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:58 pm

Ken Starr was in on Epstein, too? How a propos. I thought he was a winner before, but wow, that really seals the deal.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11917
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 4:19 pm

jetero wrote:
Ken Starr was in on Epstein, too? .


Surprising choice considering Trump thinks he is an idiot...

https://youtu.be/ufMiI9PjVCw

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10899
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 5:43 pm

the sequel is almost always less exciting than the original. It is the cast who let's this one down. 8-)
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
NIKV69
Posts: 13087
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:03 pm

seb146 wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
Got my popcorn. Wonder what Nadler will do when Trump is acquitted go back to saying he didn't pay his taxes?


Or keep bringing facts that he broke law after Constitutional law. That would be my guess, since this is what the impeachment in the House was about the the trial in the Senate is all about.

NIKV69 wrote:
Oh BTW Epstein didn't kill himself.


Pour me a Boli/Stoli, We agree on something!


What the heck is that drink? When I fly the 777 for the first time you and BN747 better get something more top shelf than that stuff.
Nikon from day one, Nikon till I die.
 
AirWorthy99
Posts: 429
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:57 pm

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:07 pm

Forgone conclusion.

Any care to bet on the vote.?

Acquittal, 53-47. The extra vote is Joe Manchin from W-va making this a bi-partisan acquittal. Doug Jones from Alabama might vote to acquit but I think he knows he will lose reelection anyways, so he will vote to convict.
“In my experience eloquent men are right every bit as often as imbeciles.” Tyrion Lannister
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 21509
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:30 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
Got my popcorn. Wonder what Nadler will do when Trump is acquitted go back to saying he didn't pay his taxes?


Or keep bringing facts that he broke law after Constitutional law. That would be my guess, since this is what the impeachment in the House was about the the trial in the Senate is all about.

NIKV69 wrote:
Oh BTW Epstein didn't kill himself.


Pour me a Boli/Stoli, We agree on something!


What the heck is that drink? When I fly the 777 for the first time you and BN747 better get something more top shelf than that stuff.


Eddie and Patsy would drink that on "Absolutely Fabulous". Bollinger champagne and Stolichnaya vodka.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 21509
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:33 pm

AirWorthy99 wrote:
Forgone conclusion.

Any care to bet on the vote.?

Acquittal, 53-47. The extra vote is Joe Manchin from W-va making this a bi-partisan acquittal. Doug Jones from Alabama might vote to acquit but I think he knows he will lose reelection anyways, so he will vote to convict.


We already knew this when two of the jurors said they made up their minds before a trial date was even set! How is this a fair process when that happens and the media is being blocked from reporting what goes on during the show trial?

On the other hand, with no reporters there, it could give cover to the few Republicans who actually take their oath seriously. So, the vote may be closer than you think. Perhaps a couple of Republicans doing the chicken thing and voting present instead or not voting at all?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
AirWorthy99
Posts: 429
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:57 pm

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:40 pm

seb146 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Forgone conclusion.

Any care to bet on the vote.?

Acquittal, 53-47. The extra vote is Joe Manchin from W-va making this a bi-partisan acquittal. Doug Jones from Alabama might vote to acquit but I think he knows he will lose reelection anyways, so he will vote to convict.


We already knew this when two of the jurors said they made up their minds before a trial date was even set! How is this a fair process when that happens and the media is being blocked from reporting what goes on during the show trial?

On the other hand, with no reporters there, it could give cover to the few Republicans who actually take their oath seriously. So, the vote may be closer than you think. Perhaps a couple of Republicans doing the chicken thing and voting present instead or not voting at all?


Well you might just have Susan Collins voting convict on at least one article, and Doug Jones voting against one article. Which seem the most vulnerable of the senators running for reelection later this year.

Don't know if anyone can vote present on this...
“In my experience eloquent men are right every bit as often as imbeciles.” Tyrion Lannister
 
NIKV69
Posts: 13087
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:55 pm

seb146 wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Or keep bringing facts that he broke law after Constitutional law. That would be my guess, since this is what the impeachment in the House was about the the trial in the Senate is all about.



Pour me a Boli/Stoli, We agree on something!


What the heck is that drink? When I fly the 777 for the first time you and BN747 better get something more top shelf than that stuff.


Eddie and Patsy would drink that on "Absolutely Fabulous". Bollinger champagne and Stolichnaya vodka.


Hmmmm sub titos maybe. Hmmm.
Nikon from day one, Nikon till I die.
 
BN747
Topic Author
Posts: 7356
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:57 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
Got my popcorn. Wonder what Nadler will do when Trump is acquitted go back to saying he didn't pay his taxes?


Or keep bringing facts that he broke law after Constitutional law. That would be my guess, since this is what the impeachment in the House was about the the trial in the Senate is all about.

NIKV69 wrote:
Oh BTW Epstein didn't kill himself.


Pour me a Boli/Stoli, We agree on something!


What the heck is that drink? When I fly the 777 for the first time you and BN747 better get something more top shelf than that stuff.


Always a healthy stash on deck...

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
Ken777
Posts: 9995
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:21 pm

The only interesting issue here is if there is at least 51 votes to convict. No way will Trump be voted to remove - until November.

Interesting points will Lindsey's famous speech as prosecutor that "this is about cleansing the Oval Office" being repeated right in his face. Then there is the quote from Ken Star when he was a Prosecutor in Clinton's Trial: " You have to have witnesses. You cannot have a trial without witnesses." Throw that in his face.

Both video clips should be run as Dem ads on a continual bias during the trial.
 
jetero
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:53 pm

Ken777 wrote:
The only interesting issue here is if there is at least 51 votes to convict. No way will Trump be voted to remove - until November.

Interesting points will Lindsey's famous speech as prosecutor that "this is about cleansing the Oval Office" being repeated right in his face. Then there is the quote from Ken Star when he was a Prosecutor in Clinton's Trial: " You have to have witnesses. You cannot have a trial without witnesses." Throw that in his face.

Both video clips should be run as Dem ads on a continual bias during the trial.


Now, now Ken, don't be silly. The Republicans are in so deep and so blatantly shameless they aren't even trying to keep up appearances. I wouldn't be surprised if--despite the video evidence--they said such quotes were entirely made up and "fake news" . . . and why shouldn't they? At least 90% of the Trump base (cult?) would believe them!
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14572
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:46 pm

Per the Constitution, conviction for removal from office or of a Federal judicial post requires a 2/3rd vote of the Senate. If all 100 participate, that means 67 votes are required. That means at least 20 Republicans and all Democrats and Independents (like Sen. Sanders) must vote to remove. That is the reality that means it is extremely unlikely to remove Pres. Trump.
Per Senate Impeachment proceeding rules, a simple 50%+1 vote is required in pre-trial or in-trial motions or to overrule rulings of the Chief Justice like to require live witnesses during trial to be presented by either party. If after the initial presentation of the House Managers and Trump's Defense representatives, it is decided by 50%+1 to not allow live witnesses, then the trial goes to a vote of the Senate to convict or not for removal. If witnesses are heard, and that may happen due to pressure on the Republicans, then the case goes until all witnesses appear then final arguments of the parties and a vote to convict or not.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 21509
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Sun Jan 19, 2020 1:13 am

ltbewr wrote:
Per the Constitution, conviction for removal from office or of a Federal judicial post requires a 2/3rd vote of the Senate. If all 100 participate, that means 67 votes are required. That means at least 20 Republicans and all Democrats and Independents (like Sen. Sanders) must vote to remove. That is the reality that means it is extremely unlikely to remove Pres. Trump.
Per Senate Impeachment proceeding rules, a simple 50%+1 vote is required in pre-trial or in-trial motions or to overrule rulings of the Chief Justice like to require live witnesses during trial to be presented by either party. If after the initial presentation of the House Managers and Trump's Defense representatives, it is decided by 50%+1 to not allow live witnesses, then the trial goes to a vote of the Senate to convict or not for removal. If witnesses are heard, and that may happen due to pressure on the Republicans, then the case goes until all witnesses appear then final arguments of the parties and a vote to convict or not.


Thank you. There is a lot of good information in this post.

I do not think Democrats ever expected him to be removed. That he is only the third sitting president ever to be impeached is huge. For all the other alleged crimes other presidents are said to have committed, only three have risen to the level of impeachment. I know some Democrats want removal but the vast majority are willing to wait until November 3 for that to happen.

If the Republic lasts that long.....
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10630
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:45 pm

Lots more mental gymnastics here from Senator Cornyn, who claims Rudy Colludy somehow isn't relevant to the proceedings. $5 says he won't feel that way about other potential witnesses. Bizarro world.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/1 ... ial-100993
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11917
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:54 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
Lots more mental gymnastics here from Senator Cornyn, who claims Rudy Colludy somehow isn't relevant to the proceedings. $5 says he won't feel that way about other potential witnesses. Bizarro world.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/1 ... ial-100993


We need to hear from people that where present, not just hearsay.....!!

But not that one
Or that one
Nah, this one either....

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 9978
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Mon Jan 20, 2020 3:58 pm

seb146 wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
Per the Constitution, conviction for removal from office or of a Federal judicial post requires a 2/3rd vote of the Senate. If all 100 participate, that means 67 votes are required. That means at least 20 Republicans and all Democrats and Independents (like Sen. Sanders) must vote to remove. That is the reality that means it is extremely unlikely to remove Pres. Trump.
Per Senate Impeachment proceeding rules, a simple 50%+1 vote is required in pre-trial or in-trial motions or to overrule rulings of the Chief Justice like to require live witnesses during trial to be presented by either party. If after the initial presentation of the House Managers and Trump's Defense representatives, it is decided by 50%+1 to not allow live witnesses, then the trial goes to a vote of the Senate to convict or not for removal. If witnesses are heard, and that may happen due to pressure on the Republicans, then the case goes until all witnesses appear then final arguments of the parties and a vote to convict or not.


Thank you. There is a lot of good information in this post.

I do not think Democrats ever expected him to be removed. That he is only the third sitting president ever to be impeached is huge. For all the other alleged crimes other presidents are said to have committed, only three have risen to the level of impeachment. I know some Democrats want removal but the vast majority are willing to wait until November 3 for that to happen.

If the Republic lasts that long.....



It is a high bar, but the Democrats want to be able to run on what they have done to stop arguably the worst leader the US has ever had. They also want to run on what their GOP opponents say and do during this trial. The GOP may see cohesion as a sign of strength, but in the face of epic wrongdoing, the GOP have find it to be their collective worst enemy come election time.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11917
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:57 am

casinterest wrote:
seb146 wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
Per the Constitution, conviction for removal from office or of a Federal judicial post requires a 2/3rd vote of the Senate. If all 100 participate, that means 67 votes are required. That means at least 20 Republicans and all Democrats and Independents (like Sen. Sanders) must vote to remove. That is the reality that means it is extremely unlikely to remove Pres. Trump.
Per Senate Impeachment proceeding rules, a simple 50%+1 vote is required in pre-trial or in-trial motions or to overrule rulings of the Chief Justice like to require live witnesses during trial to be presented by either party. If after the initial presentation of the House Managers and Trump's Defense representatives, it is decided by 50%+1 to not allow live witnesses, then the trial goes to a vote of the Senate to convict or not for removal. If witnesses are heard, and that may happen due to pressure on the Republicans, then the case goes until all witnesses appear then final arguments of the parties and a vote to convict or not.


Thank you. There is a lot of good information in this post.

I do not think Democrats ever expected him to be removed. That he is only the third sitting president ever to be impeached is huge. For all the other alleged crimes other presidents are said to have committed, only three have risen to the level of impeachment. I know some Democrats want removal but the vast majority are willing to wait until November 3 for that to happen.

If the Republic lasts that long.....



It is a high bar, but the Democrats want to be able to run on what they have done to stop arguably the worst leader the US has ever had. They also want to run on what their GOP opponents say and do during this trial. The GOP may see cohesion as a sign of strength, but in the face of epic wrongdoing, the GOP have find it to be their collective worst enemy come election time.


I think politically they will be happy enough with Trump getting acquitted in a "see no evidence, hear no witnesses" trial, considering that Trump is already about as popular as Sarah Palin, and even less than Mike Pence among Republicans as much as Democrats or Liberals.

Winning the Election, removing the roadblock barring the DoJ from doing its job, going after criminals, and having Handcuffs click on Trumps wrist will probably be much more satisfying then the "I step down, you pardon me"** sort of outcome.

best regards
Thomas

*State Crimes probably still get him
This Singature is a safe space......
 
BN747
Topic Author
Posts: 7356
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:00 am

Hmmm so the Impeachment Trial of the US President is about to begin...being led by a guy named Moscow Mitch
...well Putin will be pleased.

Moscow Mitch's Midnight ride...don't blink or you'll miss it!

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10630
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:03 am

WTF is this??

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-BBZa0RT

And the White House has indicated in conversations with Republican lawmakers that it could appeal to federal courts for an injunction that would stop Bolton if he refuses to go along with their instructions, according to a senior administration official, who, like others interviewed for this article, was not authorized to speak publicly and so spoke on the condition of anonymity.

With public support for hearing from witnesses well north of 60% in polling (close to 50% even among GOPers), this sounds like a dangerous and unwise strategy. Shielding the public from hearing from Bolton makes it obvious they have no idea what he might say and are terrified of potential impact. Did they forget he has a book dropping soon?
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
jetero
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:13 am

Aaron747 wrote:
WTF is this??

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-BBZa0RT

And the White House has indicated in conversations with Republican lawmakers that it could appeal to federal courts for an injunction that would stop Bolton if he refuses to go along with their instructions, according to a senior administration official, who, like others interviewed for this article, was not authorized to speak publicly and so spoke on the condition of anonymity.

With public support for hearing from witnesses well north of 60% in polling (close to 50% even among GOPers), this sounds like a dangerous and unwise strategy. Shielding the public from hearing from Bolton makes it obvious they have no idea what he might say and are terrified of potential impact. Did they forget he has a book dropping soon?


I’ve heard recently people care only about the economy. So definitely nothing to see here.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10630
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:20 am

jetero wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
WTF is this??

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-BBZa0RT

And the White House has indicated in conversations with Republican lawmakers that it could appeal to federal courts for an injunction that would stop Bolton if he refuses to go along with their instructions, according to a senior administration official, who, like others interviewed for this article, was not authorized to speak publicly and so spoke on the condition of anonymity.

With public support for hearing from witnesses well north of 60% in polling (close to 50% even among GOPers), this sounds like a dangerous and unwise strategy. Shielding the public from hearing from Bolton makes it obvious they have no idea what he might say and are terrified of potential impact. Did they forget he has a book dropping soon?


I’ve heard recently people care only about the economy. So definitely nothing to see here.


There’s already GOP precedent for this stuff though - after Iran Contra, Reagan said ‘I have nothing to hide - everyone will testify’ and we got more indictments out of that and a national apology from the WH. But oh yeah, that whole integrity thing. Oh well.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
DLFREEBIRD
Posts: 1201
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:12 am

jetero wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
WTF is this??

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-BBZa0RT

And the White House has indicated in conversations with Republican lawmakers that it could appeal to federal courts for an injunction that would stop Bolton if he refuses to go along with their instructions, according to a senior administration official, who, like others interviewed for this article, was not authorized to speak publicly and so spoke on the condition of anonymity.

With public support for hearing from witnesses well north of 60% in polling (close to 50% even among GOPers), this sounds like a dangerous and unwise strategy. Shielding the public from hearing from Bolton makes it obvious they have no idea what he might say and are terrified of potential impact. Did they forget he has a book dropping soon?


I’ve heard recently people care only about the economy. So definitely nothing to see here.


people are worrying that Trump going to wreck our economy,
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14572
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:59 am

There is no doubt that Trump will use every tool he can to prevent any witnesses against him, especially if worked in his administration, by using 'executive privilege' even to the point of emergency appeals to the US Supreme Court or ordering via the US Attorney General Barr, US Marshals to arrest them as they enter the Capital to do so. If he does that, it is likely to set up a precedent that will be very dangerous to this country and very damaging to his re-election.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11917
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:08 pm

ltbewr wrote:
by using 'executive privilege' .


Fun fact: the Trump admin has never actually claimed executive privilege in the hole impeachment thing.... that would make it a court case, and even his lawyers must be telling him he´d lose. They only talk about it, since they can´t say "We are obstructing congress".

You can not claim "executive privilege", or the 5th, without knowing the question you are going to be asked.

US Attorney General Barr


He is the chief obstructionist....
Rudy.. either he acted on the direction of Trump, or he violated the Logan act and needs to be indicted.

US Marshals to arrest them as they enter the Capital to do so.


arrest for what exactly? They´d be back at the capital in less than 24 hours. Testifying doesn´t violage a law.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 9978
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:50 pm

Well we are off to a smashing start with Schumer and Pelosi branding McConnell as a liar and corrupt.

Schumer pledged to offer amendments to change the "most egregious things" McConnell proposed, pleading for four Republicans — the number needed to form a majority — to vote with the Democrats.

"His resolution creates a trial that is rushed, with as little evidence as possible and done in the dark of night," Schumer said, adding, "If their case is so strong, why are they afraid to present it in the light of day?"

Accusing Trump of trying "to blackmail a foreign country so they could interfere in our election," Schumer claimed McConnell was now "totally, totally, totally going along with Trump’s cover-up, hook, line and sinker."



"Leader McConnell’s process is deliberately designed to hide the truth from the Senate and from the American people, because he knows that the president’s wrongdoing is indefensible and demands removal," Pelosi said in a statement. "No jury would be asked to operate on McConnell’s absurdly compressed schedule, and it is obvious that no senator who votes for it is intending to truly weigh the damning evidence of the president’s attacks on our Constitution."

"The public now knows why Leader McConnell has been hiding his resolution: The Clinton comparison was a lie," she continued. "Clearly and sadly, Leader McConnell has misled the American people.
'
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- ... s-n1119026




It does seem that McConnel's rules for the Trial are designed to obsfucate and rush the process with limited witnesses and handwritten questions instead of oral arguments.

What do you all think ?


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- ... t-n1118801

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/20/79800759 ... -procedure


Is McConnell laying his own trap with these rules?
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 21509
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:36 pm

casinterest wrote:
Well we are off to a smashing start with Schumer and Pelosi branding McConnell as a liar and corrupt.

Schumer pledged to offer amendments to change the "most egregious things" McConnell proposed, pleading for four Republicans — the number needed to form a majority — to vote with the Democrats.

"His resolution creates a trial that is rushed, with as little evidence as possible and done in the dark of night," Schumer said, adding, "If their case is so strong, why are they afraid to present it in the light of day?"

Accusing Trump of trying "to blackmail a foreign country so they could interfere in our election," Schumer claimed McConnell was now "totally, totally, totally going along with Trump’s cover-up, hook, line and sinker."



"Leader McConnell’s process is deliberately designed to hide the truth from the Senate and from the American people, because he knows that the president’s wrongdoing is indefensible and demands removal," Pelosi said in a statement. "No jury would be asked to operate on McConnell’s absurdly compressed schedule, and it is obvious that no senator who votes for it is intending to truly weigh the damning evidence of the president’s attacks on our Constitution."

"The public now knows why Leader McConnell has been hiding his resolution: The Clinton comparison was a lie," she continued. "Clearly and sadly, Leader McConnell has misled the American people.
'
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- ... s-n1119026




It does seem that McConnel's rules for the Trial are designed to obsfucate and rush the process with limited witnesses and handwritten questions instead of oral arguments.

What do you all think ?


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- ... t-n1118801

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/20/79800759 ... -procedure


Is McConnell laying his own trap with these rules?


Some Republicans have already said they will move to impeach the next Democrat elected president. The way Republicans are setting up this mockery of justice and the Constitution sets precident for Democrats to do nothing when their president is impeached for literally no reason.

Republicans do not care about law or the Constitution. They simply care about being in power. They make a lot of money for themselves by staying in power.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
dmg626
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 3:47 pm

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:38 pm

DLFREEBIRD wrote:
jetero wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
WTF is this??

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-BBZa0RT

And the White House has indicated in conversations with Republican lawmakers that it could appeal to federal courts for an injunction that would stop Bolton if he refuses to go along with their instructions, according to a senior administration official, who, like others interviewed for this article, was not authorized to speak publicly and so spoke on the condition of anonymity.

With public support for hearing from witnesses well north of 60% in polling (close to 50% even among GOPers), this sounds like a dangerous and unwise strategy. Shielding the public from hearing from Bolton makes it obvious they have no idea what he might say and are terrified of potential impact. Did they forget he has a book dropping soon?


I’ve heard recently people care only about the economy. So definitely nothing to see here.


people are worrying that Trump going to wreck our economy,


What “people” are those ?
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 9978
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:44 pm

seb146 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Well we are off to a smashing start with Schumer and Pelosi branding McConnell as a liar and corrupt.

Schumer pledged to offer amendments to change the "most egregious things" McConnell proposed, pleading for four Republicans — the number needed to form a majority — to vote with the Democrats.

"His resolution creates a trial that is rushed, with as little evidence as possible and done in the dark of night," Schumer said, adding, "If their case is so strong, why are they afraid to present it in the light of day?"

Accusing Trump of trying "to blackmail a foreign country so they could interfere in our election," Schumer claimed McConnell was now "totally, totally, totally going along with Trump’s cover-up, hook, line and sinker."



"Leader McConnell’s process is deliberately designed to hide the truth from the Senate and from the American people, because he knows that the president’s wrongdoing is indefensible and demands removal," Pelosi said in a statement. "No jury would be asked to operate on McConnell’s absurdly compressed schedule, and it is obvious that no senator who votes for it is intending to truly weigh the damning evidence of the president’s attacks on our Constitution."

"The public now knows why Leader McConnell has been hiding his resolution: The Clinton comparison was a lie," she continued. "Clearly and sadly, Leader McConnell has misled the American people.
'
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- ... s-n1119026




It does seem that McConnel's rules for the Trial are designed to obsfucate and rush the process with limited witnesses and handwritten questions instead of oral arguments.

What do you all think ?


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- ... t-n1118801

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/20/79800759 ... -procedure


Is McConnell laying his own trap with these rules?


Some Republicans have already said they will move to impeach the next Democrat elected president. The way Republicans are setting up this mockery of justice and the Constitution sets precident for Democrats to do nothing when their president is impeached for literally no reason.

Republicans do not care about law or the Constitution. They simply care about being in power. They make a lot of money for themselves by staying in power.


And this is different for the GOP How ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_t ... rack_Obama
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2869
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:31 pm

casinterest wrote:
seb146 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Well we are off to a smashing start with Schumer and Pelosi branding McConnell as a liar and corrupt.




'
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- ... s-n1119026




It does seem that McConnel's rules for the Trial are designed to obsfucate and rush the process with limited witnesses and handwritten questions instead of oral arguments.

What do you all think ?


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- ... t-n1118801

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/20/79800759 ... -procedure


Is McConnell laying his own trap with these rules?


Some Republicans have already said they will move to impeach the next Democrat elected president. The way Republicans are setting up this mockery of justice and the Constitution sets precident for Democrats to do nothing when their president is impeached for literally no reason.

Republicans do not care about law or the Constitution. They simply care about being in power. They make a lot of money for themselves by staying in power.


And this is different for the GOP How ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_t ... rack_Obama


... I mean the Democrats literally ran on impeachment in 2018... How is that any different? Honestly surprised we didn't have Pelosi come out and say, "We need to impeach him so we can find out what he did wrong."

I've mostly remained silent on the threads regarding impeachment, partially because of things going on in real life, partially because the whole thing was a foregone conclusion before it even began, but mainly because it doesn't matter what is said by anyone on either side, nobody is going to change their minds (as I said, foregone conclusion).

That being said, I am curious, why weren't these, supposedly incredibly important witnesses, not called in the house? To me, the only real logical answer to that is, they weren't needed to make the case. Well if they weren't needed to make the case, why are they so important now? And don't give me the, well new information has come to light excuse. Nothing I've seen suggests anything different than where we began. If Bolton was that important to the case he should have been called to the house to testify. (For the record, I don't really care if Bolton testifies, along with other witnesses, I don't believe they will have anything all that damning to say to be honest.)

Republicans are doing a terrible job of PR (as usual) on this. They need to flip it on its head and say this is election tampering. Using the legislature's powers to dig up dirt on a potential presidential nominee. For shame!
 
jetero
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:35 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
That being said, I am curious, why weren't these, supposedly incredibly important witnesses, not called in the house? To me, the only real logical answer to that is, they weren't needed to make the case. Well if they weren't needed to make the case, why are they so important now?


There's been plenty written about this.

trpmb6 wrote:
Republicans are doing a terrible job of PR (as usual) on this. They need to flip it on its head and say this is election tampering. Using the legislature's powers to dig up dirt on a potential presidential nominee. For shame!


Seems to me they're doing a great PR job on this if you people don't know the answer to the question you posed.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 9978
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Impeachment part II: The Senate Trial

Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:48 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Some Republicans have already said they will move to impeach the next Democrat elected president. The way Republicans are setting up this mockery of justice and the Constitution sets precident for Democrats to do nothing when their president is impeached for literally no reason.

Republicans do not care about law or the Constitution. They simply care about being in power. They make a lot of money for themselves by staying in power.


And this is different for the GOP How ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_t ... rack_Obama


... I mean the Democrats literally ran on impeachment in 2018... How is that any different? Honestly surprised we didn't have Pelosi come out and say, "We need to impeach him so we can find out what he did wrong."

I've mostly remained silent on the threads regarding impeachment, partially because of things going on in real life, partially because the whole thing was a foregone conclusion before it even began, but mainly because it doesn't matter what is said by anyone on either side, nobody is going to change their minds (as I said, foregone conclusion).

That being said, I am curious, why weren't these, supposedly incredibly important witnesses, not called in the house? To me, the only real logical answer to that is, they weren't needed to make the case. Well if they weren't needed to make the case, why are they so important now? And don't give me the, well new information has come to light excuse. Nothing I've seen suggests anything different than where we began. If Bolton was that important to the case he should have been called to the house to testify. (For the record, I don't really care if Bolton testifies, along with other witnesses, I don't believe they will have anything all that damning to say to be honest.)

Republicans are doing a terrible job of PR (as usual) on this. They need to flip it on its head and say this is election tampering. Using the legislature's powers to dig up dirt on a potential presidential nominee. For shame!


Really?
These witnesses were all protected by the White House under "Executive Priviledge" Which would have taken the whole year to sort out driving impeachment through the next election. Now, Bolton wants to testify, let's have it. See if the GOP and their Pravda right wing news channels can spin things when the President's own men incriminate him.

The GOP is in a very bad spot. They have bluffed themselves all in on a pot with 7-2 offsuit when their are nothing but facecards on the flop and turn.
Where ever you go, there you are.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, ER757, moo, northstardc4m, vhqpa, Waterbomber2 and 31 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos