Trump impeachment,would witnesses have made a difference?

[oldbadger]

Watching the impeachment from an outside perspective I can't get my head around voting on whether to allow witnesses,surely if someone is either guilty or innocent they are essential in proving the accused either way,please explain.

Oh let's leave 'em to get on with it.
Where I live to deliberately obstruct witness testimony is a perversion of the course of justice, but US law is so so different from ours.

It seems to me that in the US some senators are aligned to politics before they are devoted to simple witness truth.

I cannot help but wonder if the representatives who decided to vote against Witness testimonies got any benefit from their actions?

 

[England my lionheart]

Oh let's leave 'em to get on with it.
Where I live to deliberately obstruct witness testimony is a perversion of the course of justice, but US law is so so different from ours.

It seems to me that in the US some senators are aligned to politics before they are devoted to simple witness truth.

I cannot help but wonder if the representatives who decided to vote against Witness testimonies got any benefit from their actions?

Your right about US law being different to ours,I thought though that the principles would be the same.

 

[England my lionheart]

Impeachment was designed to avoid that. The Founders modified British impeachment of the King's representatives into POTUS impeachment.

Thanks for the info.

 

[England my lionheart]

Given that the Republicans have flat out stated they were going to acquit long before the House even got the impeachment started, I say the Republicans are merely trying to get it over with as soon as possible.
I mean, look at all the golf they are missing being tied to a boring *** trial that they have no intentions of paying attention to.

I thought it was a done deal before the trial even started from what I was hearing.

So far I've learned that the trial wasn't a trial in what I know as a trial,no witnesses,no cross examination and rushed through maybe to get back on the golf course.

 

[oldbadger]

Your right about US law being different to ours,I thought though that the principles would be the same.

OK.
Sometimes I do wonder about some of our judgements, but US law just horrified me at times.

If a Brit diplomat's wife had crashed on to a motorcyclist and he had died, do you think that our politicians would have decided extradition or a panel of our judges?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK.
Sometimes I do wonder about some of our judgements, but US law just horrified me at times.

If a Brit diplomat's wife had crashed on to a motorcyclist and he had died, do you think that our politicians would have decided extradition or a panel of our judges?

i don't think it is US law that is the problem. I think it is US leadership. If the President wanted justice done that driver would be back in Britain.

 

[SoyLeche]

Once Again?

The Constitution explicitly calls for impeachments to be tried in the Senate.
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." from Article I, Section 3, Clause 6

Are you actually suggesting that the Senate can place the President (or any elected or appointed official for that matter) on trial for impeachment indefinitely?

It would be a remarkably stupid thing to do, but that doesn’t mean the 6th amendment applies.

 

[England my lionheart]

OK.
Sometimes I do wonder about some of our judgements, but US law just horrified me at times.

If a Brit diplomat's wife had crashed on to a motorcyclist and he had died, do you think that our politicians would have decided extradition or a panel of our judges?

The problem is diplomatic immunity,there are at least 12 envoys who have committed serious crimes and claimed immunity,if i recollect correctly ranging from paedophilia for two Mexicans,some Saudis for people trafficking but can't remember the rest,there's also many traffic violations too.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Uh huh.

"I am standing for the right, being firm and holding my principals.

YOU are being obstructive, stubborn and bowing to pressure from people who don't know their asses from their elbows."

Gotcha.

.........didn't read the rest of the post. Should I have?

Only if you would like to hear the evidence I have to support the claim I was making. I realize that dismissing unpleasant charges, without considering the evidence, is fashionable with the Trump Party these days.

If that shoe fits you ... by all means, wear it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

To compare the impeachment trial to a legal civil proceeding, we can say Trump was granted summary judgment. That’s a slam dunk win. Those who don’t understand procedure will try to argue against Trump and speak of “cover ups,” but they’d be wrong. Also, anyone who thinks the GOP will take a hit this election is sorely out of touch with an enormous block of American voters.

I am afraid I have to agree with Watchman on that last point. I do not agree with others on this thread that the GOP will pay a price this November for protecting Trump from embarrassment and accountability. Half the voting public enthusiastically puts party before country right now and will essentially, as Trump said himself, support him even if he shoots someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue.

 

[Revoltingest]

Only if you would like to hear the evidence I have to support the claim I was making. I realize that dismissing unpleasant charges, without considering the evidence, is fashionable with the Trump Party these days.

If that shoe fits you ... by all means, wear it.

Evidence is of questionable value in light of other factors.
Consider the consequence of impeachment & conviction, ie, Trump replacing
Pence. Last year, Pence as Prez meant he might appoint a USSC justice.
This year, there'd be too little time for one to be confirmed. So one's evaluation
of impeachment could greatly change, independent of any evidence.
It might matter more now to those who saw that danger in Pence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is diplomatic immunity,there are at least 12 envoys who have committed serious crimes and claimed immunity,if i recollect correctly ranging from paedophilia for two Mexicans,some Saudis for people trafficking but can't remember the rest,there's also many traffic violations too.

I think we all feel like this at times:

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am afraid I have to agree with Watchman on that last point. I do not agree with others on this thread that the GOP will pay a price this November for protecting Trump from embarrassment and accountability. Half the voting public enthusiastically puts party before country right now and will essentially, as Trump said himself, support him even if he shoots someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue.

It would take only a small percentage of Republicans changing their mind to make him lose the election. I do not think that there will be large scale desertion. I only want a rather small percentage of people who's morals wake up.

 

[SoyLeche]

Only if you would like to hear the evidence I have to support the claim I was making. I realize that dismissing unpleasant charges, without considering the evidence, is fashionable with the Trump Party these days.

If that shoe fits you ... by all means, wear it.

Ignorance is strength.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

i don't think it is US law that is the problem. I think it is US leadership. If the President wanted justice done that driver would be back in Britain.

Well it’s a combination of a failure of leadership in what used to be called the Republican Party (now the Trump Party), but also, a failure of half of our citizens to incentivize their leaders to side with Trump at all costs.

It’s a negative feedback loop. Because the voting base applauds (or dismisses) Trump’s corrupt behavior and punishes “disloyalty” to the leader, rather than rewarding Congressional leaders who stand for what is right. I’m response, Trump Party leaders are afraid of holding him accountable publicly. But that, it turn, creates a Trump Party echo chamber largely devoid of criticism of the President, and so any criticism looks partisan (it’s all coming from the Democrats) and can therefore be dismissed - without examining whether it’s valid criticism, or not. This further entrenched loyalty to Trump among the voting base, which further incentivizes the leaders to not break ranks ...

So is it a failure of leadership or a failure of followers to reward the right behaviors in their leaders? It’s both.

I know many people in the Trump Party personally. They could have sided with McCain, or Romney, or Kasich, or heck even Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham (back in 2016) vs Trump. They could have voted for Trump in 2016, but withdrawn that support afterwards, like so many of Trump’s own advisors and generals appear to have done.

They made a different choice. They are therefore partly responsible. In spite of the fact that they are so, so much better than this. It’s sad.

 

[columbus]

Popular vote is irrelevant.

So why do people keep referring to Trump as elected?
Why do they think that the USA public support his policies when he lost the election quite decisively?
Tom

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Evidence is of questionable value in light of other factors.
Consider the consequence of impeachment & conviction, ie, Trump replacing
Pence. Last year, Pence as Prez meant he might appoint a USSC justice.
This year, there'd be too little time for one to be confirmed. So one's evaluation
of impeachment could greatly change, independent of any evidence.
It might matter more now to those who saw that danger in Pence.

I can respect the position that he shouldn’t be convicted and removed from office - though I disagree. But the vote that was taken was to not even call witnesses. There’s one reason for that and I think we both know what that reason is. Imagine if Bolton’s book was supposed to have said something that exonerated Trump ... somehow I doubt the Trump Party would have wished to not hear from him. That’s not really a trial, that’s his toadies in the Trump Party covering up for him.

 

[SoyLeche]

So why do people keep referring to Trump as elected?
Why do they think that the USA public support his policies when he lost the election quite decisively?
Tom

He certainly didn’t receive a “mandate”, although he seems to think he did and his followers agree with him.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can respect the position that he shouldn’t be convicted and removed from office - though I disagree. But the vote that was taken was to not even call witnesses. There’s one reason for that and I think we both know what that reason is. Imagine if Bolton’s book was supposed to have said something that exonerated Trump ... somehow I doubt the Trump Party would have wished to not hear from him. That’s not really a trial, that’s his toadies in the Trump Party covering up for him.

The trial isn't really a "trial" in the sense of the justice system.
It's a vote to keep or boot a President. It seems normal that
minds are made up long before the so called trial.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The trial isn't really a "trial" in the sense of the justice system.
It's a vote to keep or boot a President. It seems normal that
minds are made up long before the so called trial.

I realize it’s not a criminal trial. But it has a purpose that is intended to protect the Constitution and the powers of Congress in our system of checks and balances. The Trump Party has decided merely to protect their shabby demagogue - and themselves. They could have made a different choice.

One caveat: what I’m saying here would have to change if the Senate does take some kind of action. Such as censuring Trump, or continuing an investigation into the holdup of the aid. I.e., imposing consequences for bad executive behavior, but without removing him from office.

Unfortunately it appears the plan is to just completely cover up for Trump and not do their jobs as Congress to control the purse and oversee the executive.