• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Senate Trial

Elixir

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
30,391
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Last time there was an impeachment trial in the Senate, I missed it. We had just moved from Boulder CO to this very rural outpost. I recall driving some distance to obtain sandwich making materials for our first meal, as we had no kitchen and only one half-bath was finished in the house. No sound system, just a little AM/FM radio, which brought in exactly one AM station. We happily settled in on the floor with the dogs to enjoy our meal, listening to the scratchy AM station. I remember thinking "that is an odd selection for a music station" when the Star Spangled banner began a couple of minutes before 6pm. Then ... silence. Took a few minutes to figure out what had happened.
Needless to say, we were insulated from "da media", and it stayed that way for several months until we got one of those old 10 foot satellite dishes that could be pointed at various satellites to get different TV stations. So I missed the entire Senate trial of Bill Clinton's impeachment. Didn't bother me then, as I was sure beyond any reasonable doubt that a blowjob or "it depends what is is" wasn't going get him thrown out of office anyhow.
Now, I am wishing I had seen it. Wondering what Justice Roberts' role will look like, and if there are different rules for compelling testimony, among other things. Does anyone here have a feel for those matters?
Thanks.
 
Elixir said:
Last time there was an impeachment trial in the Senate, I missed it. We had just moved from Boulder CO to this very rural outpost. I recall driving some distance to obtain sandwich making materials for our first meal, as we had no kitchen and only one half-bath was finished in the house. No sound system, just a little AM/FM radio, which brought in exactly one AM station. We happily settled in on the floor with the dogs to enjoy our meal, listening to the scratchy AM station. I remember thinking "that is an odd selection for a music station" when the Star Spangled banner began a couple of minutes before 6pm. Then ... silence. Took a few minutes to figure out what had happened.
Needless to say, we were insulated from "da media", and it stayed that way for several months until we got one of those old 10 foot satellite dishes that could be pointed at various satellites to get different TV stations. So I missed the entire Senate trial of Bill Clinton's impeachment. Didn't bother me then, as I was sure beyond any reasonable doubt that a blowjob or "it depends what is is" wasn't going get him thrown out of office anyhow.
Now, I am wishing I had seen it. Wondering what Justice Roberts' role will look like, and if there are different rules for compelling testimony, among other things. Does anyone here have a feel for those matters?
Thanks.
Click to expand...

Didn't Clinton's impeachment come down to one vote? I thought it was very close, as was Andrew Johnson's.

I'd like to break with tradition and see Dotard in Chief get the sack. It could actually happen, particularly with Roberts presiding.
 
T.G.G. Moogly said:
It could actually happen, particularly with Roberts presiding.
Click to expand...

What power does he wield in that proceeding? Can he compel witnesses to appear, etc, or is he just a procedural referee?

The Clinton vote wasn't even close:

Wiki:
On February 12, Clinton was acquitted on both counts as neither received the necessary two-thirds majority vote of the senators present for conviction and removal from office – in this instance 67. On Article One, 45 senators voted to convict while 55 voted for acquittal. On Article Two, 50 senators voted to convict while 50 voted for acquittal.[3] Consequently, Clinton remained in office for the balance of his second term.
Click to expand...
 
TV and credit cards said:
I was wondering about this also. Just what powers does the Chief Justice have presiding over an impeachment? So far, I got this: https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/17/trial-of-impeachment. I haven't looked through any of the "further reading" yet.
Click to expand...

Thank you!

Link:
" In the first presidential impeachment trial in 1868, Chief Justice Salmon Chase claimed the authority to decide certain procedural questions on his own, but the Senate challenged several of his rulings and overruled him at least twice. "
...
"Because the Constitution both provides the Senate with the "sole power to try impeachments" and empowers "Each House...to determine the Rules of its Proceedings," the Senate has formulated its own special impeachment trial procedures (first written down by Thomas Jefferson when he was Vice President)."
Click to expand...

So the rules are subject to change - I assume that once again only a majority is needed for rule changes? Sounds like the Graham-Turtles are going to have it their way.
Pity.
 
T.G.G. Moogly said:
Elixir said:
Last time there was an impeachment trial in the Senate, I missed it. We had just moved from Boulder CO to this very rural outpost. I recall driving some distance to obtain sandwich making materials for our first meal, as we had no kitchen and only one half-bath was finished in the house. No sound system, just a little AM/FM radio, which brought in exactly one AM station. We happily settled in on the floor with the dogs to enjoy our meal, listening to the scratchy AM station. I remember thinking "that is an odd selection for a music station" when the Star Spangled banner began a couple of minutes before 6pm. Then ... silence. Took a few minutes to figure out what had happened.
Needless to say, we were insulated from "da media", and it stayed that way for several months until we got one of those old 10 foot satellite dishes that could be pointed at various satellites to get different TV stations. So I missed the entire Senate trial of Bill Clinton's impeachment. Didn't bother me then, as I was sure beyond any reasonable doubt that a blowjob or "it depends what is is" wasn't going get him thrown out of office anyhow.
Now, I am wishing I had seen it. Wondering what Justice Roberts' role will look like, and if there are different rules for compelling testimony, among other things. Does anyone here have a feel for those matters?
Thanks.
Click to expand...

Didn't Clinton's impeachment come down to one vote? I thought it was very close, as was Andrew Johnson's.

I'd like to break with tradition and see Dotard in Chief get the sack. It could actually happen, particularly with Roberts presiding.
Click to expand...

It wasn't close, it takes a 2/3 majority to remove a president, or any other official that the Congress impeaches. It won't get close if Trump is impeached either. Of course this assumes that nothing comes out that's so over the top, that Republican Senators, in Republican leaning/dominated states feel their seats are in jeopardy.
 
Terrell said:
It wasn't close, it takes a 2/3 majority to remove a president, or any other official that the Congress impeaches. It won't get close if Trump is impeached either. Of course this assumes that nothing comes out that's so over the top, that Republican Senators, in Republican leaning/dominated states feel their seats are in jeopardy.
Click to expand...

Like Trump committing a very gory murder on live TV or on stage at one of his rallies? An ISIS-style beheading of "human scum" perhaps?

That might do it. But I suspect Trump is slightly too media-savvy to do that. At least with the cameras running.
 
Elixir said:
Terrell said:
It wasn't close, it takes a 2/3 majority to remove a president, or any other official that the Congress impeaches. It won't get close if Trump is impeached either. Of course this assumes that nothing comes out that's so over the top, that Republican Senators, in Republican leaning/dominated states feel their seats are in jeopardy.
Click to expand...

Like Trump committing a very gory murder on live TV or on stage at one of his rallies? An ISIS-style beheading of "human scum" perhaps?

That might do it. But I suspect Trump is slightly too media-savvy to do that. At least with the cameras running.
Click to expand...

Depends. I think he could murder someone on live TV and not lose support from his base, provided it was someone his base disliked or found unsympathetic. I do think he'd lose enough moderates to lose in the election if the Democratic alternative is tolerable in key states. Now if he skinned a kitten & ate her, on live TV, that might chip into his Republican base. But then again, he might point out that Muhammad loved cats, and it not make a difference.
 
Elixir said:
Like Trump committing a very gory murder on live TV or on stage at one of his rallies? An ISIS-style beheading of "human scum" perhaps?

That might do it. But I suspect Trump is slightly too media-savvy to do that. At least with the cameras running.
Click to expand...
Eh, he's also lazy and and a coward. Despite his "You're fired" catch phrase on his "reality" tv show. In real life he fires people over Twitter or gets one of his other lackeys to do it.

He simply doesn't have the constitution to commit murder himself. Even if it was to kill one of his most hated enemies (like Rosie O'Donnell) and the chance of acquiring one of his most desired treasures (like Barak Obama's Kenyan birth certificate) was held in the balance, I still don't think he could actually do it himself.
 
zorq said:
Elixir said:
Like Trump committing a very gory murder on live TV or on stage at one of his rallies? An ISIS-style beheading of "human scum" perhaps?

That might do it. But I suspect Trump is slightly too media-savvy to do that. At least with the cameras running.
Click to expand...
Eh, he's also lazy and and a coward. Despite his "You're fired" catch phrase on his "reality" tv show. In real life he fires people over Twitter or gets one of his other lackeys to do it.

He simply doesn't have the constitution to commit murder himself. Even if it was to kill one of his most hated enemies (like Rosie O'Donnell) and the chance of acquiring one of his most desired treasures (like Barak Obama's Kenyan birth certificate) was held in the balance, I still don't think he could actually do it himself.
Click to expand...

In the real world, I agree. But I'm not sure I think any the better of him for being a sniveling coward who can't even stomach his own dirty work.
 
Lawfare. The Senate Trial

“All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against Donald Trump.”
Click to expand...
Warms the cockles of my heart.

Some observers, like Michael Gerhardt, have argued that there’s no role for executive privilege in a Senate trial and it would likely not be recognized by the courts. Others, like Charles Black, agree with the caveat that a claim of executive privilege will be more likely to succeed where privilege is asserted to protect substantive information that would harm national security interests. In practical terms, such questions—like all evidentiary matters—are up to the chief justice in the first instance and the Senate at large ultimately.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
"“All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment ...”"
Click to expand...

Oh yeah? And just exactly WHO is going to imprison the screaming conspiracy theorists, and upon whose direction?

"like all evidentiary matters—are up to the chief justice in the first instance and the Senate at large ultimately."
Click to expand...

So it's going to be a joke and a circus all rolled into one. Nobody is going to shut up the word salad fountain from the rabid right. And forget any override of any executive privilege claim.
Oh well, better than a hoax and a witch hunt I suppose.
 
Roberts is on record saying he and SCOTUS are not political stamps. I guess we're going to find out.
 
T.G.G. Moogly said:
Elixir said:
Last time there was an impeachment trial in the Senate, I missed it. We had just moved from Boulder CO to this very rural outpost. I recall driving some distance to obtain sandwich making materials for our first meal, as we had no kitchen and only one half-bath was finished in the house. No sound system, just a little AM/FM radio, which brought in exactly one AM station. We happily settled in on the floor with the dogs to enjoy our meal, listening to the scratchy AM station. I remember thinking "that is an odd selection for a music station" when the Star Spangled banner began a couple of minutes before 6pm. Then ... silence. Took a few minutes to figure out what had happened.
Needless to say, we were insulated from "da media", and it stayed that way for several months until we got one of those old 10 foot satellite dishes that could be pointed at various satellites to get different TV stations. So I missed the entire Senate trial of Bill Clinton's impeachment. Didn't bother me then, as I was sure beyond any reasonable doubt that a blowjob or "it depends what is is" wasn't going get him thrown out of office anyhow.
Now, I am wishing I had seen it. Wondering what Justice Roberts' role will look like, and if there are different rules for compelling testimony, among other things. Does anyone here have a feel for those matters?
Thanks.
Click to expand...

Didn't Clinton's impeachment come down to one vote? I thought it was very close, as was Andrew Johnson's.
Click to expand...
No... just Andrew Johnsons was that close. They didn't even get a majority.
 
T.G.G. Moogly said:
Roberts is on record saying he and SCOTUS are not political stamps. I guess we're going to find out.
Click to expand...
And the Senate can overrule the Chief Justice... but the GOP can only do that with almost every Senator they have. Losing two or three Senators would make enforcing a banana republic trial impossible.
 
The Senate trial will actually be twice as interesting as the House committee hearings. The dynamic is going to flip and I don't know who has realized this yet.

So, for example, EVERYTHING will be on the Republican majority. They will be able to cry that Trump is a victim but their obstructions and evasions will be far more apparent as the people in control. The Democrats will constantly cry foul and make a lot of noise. If the Republicans don't subpoena all the people they've been saying were supposed to have testified, they will have egg on their collective face. The Democrats will repeat this point over and over. If they do ever subpoena anyone, their testimony will need to be consistent with witnesses to their words who were under oath in the House committees.

Think Bolton who talked about this thing as a "drug deal." If Bolton testifies, the President looks bad. If Bolton doesn't testify, the Republican Senators look bad.

So basically the Republicans have painted themselves into a corner.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
The Senate trial will actually be twice as interesting as the House committee hearings. The dynamic is going to flip and I don't know who has realized this yet.

So, for example, EVERYTHING will be on the Republican majority. They will be able to cry that Trump is a victim but their obstructions and evasions will be far more apparent as the people in control. The Democrats will constantly cry foul and make a lot of noise. If the Republicans don't subpoena all the people they've been saying were supposed to have testified, they will have egg on their collective face. The Democrats will repeat this point over and over. If they do ever subpoena anyone, their testimony will need to be consistent with witnesses to their words who were under oath in the House committees.

Think Bolton who talked about this thing as a "drug deal." If Bolton testifies, the President looks bad. If Bolton doesn't testify, the Republican Senators look bad.

So basically the Republicans have painted themselves into a corner.
Click to expand...
Not really, as it can easily work like it did with Kavanaugh. Ignore the claim, shit on the Dems, vote to acquit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom