Dan Scott said:

---

Dems shot their load too early. They should have waited.

---

Exactly. They haven't done the work necessary to prove their case. It could be that the case proves itself in the impeachment trial, but that isn't very likely.

Any investigation without questioning the most important witnesses is absurd.

"Seems to me if you're keeping score on who got it right, on allegations of FISA abuse, egregious misconduct at the highest levels of the FBI, alledged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and supposed obstruction of justice in connection to the Muller investigation. The score is Mayor Giuliani 4 and Mr. Schiff zero!"

-Jane Raskin

aggiehawg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Proc92 said:

---

Executive privilege. Hearsay. Sustained.

---

Definitely not hearsay.

Would be interesting to see how privilege issue played out. If Bolton testified, I suspect over half the senate would vote to hear the this specific testimony.

---

I think this has exposed a potential flaw in our impeachment trial process. Now the question of whether Executive Privilege applies is dependent on a majority vote in the Senate and not the courts?

---

Isn't the Senate essentially acting as a court when meeting for an impeachment trial with no higher courts over them?

---

My apologies, eric, you were right.

Seems I was channeling my inner Scalia who dissented vociferously to the Independent Counsel statute back in the day but his view did not prevail.

ETA: Apologies also to BMX.

---

Thank you.

One problem we have with analogies in general is that they often don't really fit closely. In impeachment trials, that seems to be especially true.

eric76 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Also, don't forget that in Nixon vs United States, the Supreme Court ruled that they are not a part of the impeachment trial process and that there is very little, if anything, that they have any say in what happens in the Senate trial.

---

You are referring to the impeachment of Judge Walter Nixon, not President Nixon. Just wanted to clarify that for our younger posters who see the name "Nixon" and automatically assume it was a case involving the former President.

And I could argue that that case is distinguishable on its facts and from the issues that possibly could be presented here.

---

Doesn't the supreme court have some duty to certify that the trial follows constitutional standards. AKA if some senate "voted" that a majority vote to remove the president would suffice, doesn't the SC have a duty to find that (and therefore the removal vote) unconstitutional.

---

The result of the Senate vote is final -- there are no appeals in an impeachment.

Think about it. Suppose that Clinton had been impeached. Would you have wanted him to be in a President/not-President limbo for months waiting for the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court? Would you expect the Supreme Court to have nullified the sentence or perhaps to remand it back to the Senate for a whole new trial?

Would you have wanted Clinton to removed from the Presidency and moved out of the White House only to be made President again by the Supreme Court and moved back into the White House until the Senate retried the impeachment and then him removed from the Presidency and moved out of the White House again?

The decisiveness brought about by the fact that a conviction/acquittal in an impeachment is final is very important for our country to move forward.

---

If the senate claimed they removed him with a majority vote rather than a vote by 2/3rds. Yes I would want the SC to overturn that nonsense. That is actually spelled out in the constitution.

If the senate extorted a witness, or tortured a witness for testimony, I'd also want the Executive branch & SC to step in. Constitutional powers shouldn't trump laws or constitutional rights.

Philbin is destroying your due process argument right now.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

In the case of the President, the President gets many more advantages than a criminal defendant. For example, Trump was permitted to have a presence in front of the judiciary committee and to cross examine witnesses even though he turned down the offer. Remember that the impeachment by the House is not a trial.

---

There were no fact witnesses in the House Judiciary proceedings. And the deadline for White Counsel to report to Judiciary hadn't even passed before Pelosi instructed Nadler to craft the articles and truncate the proceedings in the House. White House Counsel was still trying to find out from Nadler if they planned on having fact witnesses, who when? Nadler refused to respond to their questions, opting instead to follow Pelosi's instructions and close the hearings.

Having some legal scholars give their opinions and then counsel for the majority and minority to answer Judiciary's questions, is not a hearing whereby Trump would be able to face his true accusers, the fact witnesses.

---

The House Democrats certainly did a ridiculously horrible job at investigating the matter. I'm completely at a loss to understand how they thought it was a good idea not to interview every fact witness that they could find and are now unprepared to prosecute Trump. The only thing they can hope for is a Hail Mary pass and they aren't at all likely to get that.

It would help to start with an offense that is close to being impeachable.

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

In the case of the President, the President gets many more advantages than a criminal defendant. For example, Trump was permitted to have a presence in front of the judiciary committee and to cross examine witnesses even though he turned down the offer. Remember that the impeachment by the House is not a trial.

---

There were no fact witnesses in the House Judiciary proceedings. And the deadline for White Counsel to report to Judiciary hadn't even passed before Pelosi instructed Nadler to craft the articles and truncate the proceedings in the House. White House Counsel was still trying to find out from Nadler if they planned on having fact witnesses, who when? Nadler refused to respond to their questions, opting instead to follow Pelosi's instructions and close the hearings.

Having some legal scholars give their opinions and then counsel for the majority and minority to answer Judiciary's questions, is not a hearing whereby Trump would be able to face his true accusers, the fact witnesses.

---

The House Democrats certainly did a ridiculously horrible job at investigating the matter. I'm completely at a loss to understand how they thought it was a good idea not to interview every fact witness that they could find and are now unprepared to prosecute Trump. The only thing they can hope for is a Hail Mary pass and they aren't at all likely to get that.

---

I think it's very simple...they were driven not by a desire to seek the truth...they were driven by their emotional desire to make Trump look bad. There was no real method to the case...because there wasn't one.

At least in the case of Bill Clinton, he actually did something worthy of impeachment by lying under oath. But even then, you had R's driven by their emotional desire to make Clinton look bad...and some of them turned it into a moral argument that he was unfit for office and the American people tuned it out.

eric76 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

its not a criminal trial, so no right to an attorney.

---

Everyone deserves representation. It would be civil war if congress tried to ignore a fundamental human right like that.

---

what you think everyone deserves and what the constitution requires are not the same things.


I agree that there would be huge outrage if Trump was not allowed to have attorneys at this trial. But that does not change the constitutional requirements.

---

Due process is in the constitution. Congress doesn't get to **** on the constitutional rights of a president during their impeachment and trial.

---

Due process is in the Constitution, but only with regards to criminal trials. In the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments, the requirement is very clearly stated that it applies when a person is facing the loss of life, liberty, or property which are the outcomes if found guilty in a criminal trial, not an impeachment. No impeachment defendant is ever facing the loss of life, liberty, or property as a result of the impeachment trial except, in some cases, in the loss of his ability to run for public office in the future.

In any event, President Trump is not being denied due process.

---

Correct, every impeachment trial has AUTOMATICALLY recognized constitutional rights in previous trials. It would be VERY concerning if elected officials ignored our founding principals for a political removal, rather than one based on crimes.

You are arguing the senate should destroy the constitution to protect the constitution. It lays out the MOST FAIR SYSTEM for determining crimes.

hbtheduce said:

---

If the senate... tortured a witness for testimony, I'd also want the Executive branch & SC to step in.

---

hbtheduce said:

---

eric76 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Also, don't forget that in Nixon vs United States, the Supreme Court ruled that they are not a part of the impeachment trial process and that there is very little, if anything, that they have any say in what happens in the Senate trial.

---

You are referring to the impeachment of Judge Walter Nixon, not President Nixon. Just wanted to clarify that for our younger posters who see the name "Nixon" and automatically assume it was a case involving the former President.

And I could argue that that case is distinguishable on its facts and from the issues that possibly could be presented here.

---

Doesn't the supreme court have some duty to certify that the trial follows constitutional standards. AKA if some senate "voted" that a majority vote to remove the president would suffice, doesn't the SC have a duty to find that (and therefore the removal vote) unconstitutional.

---

The result of the Senate vote is final -- there are no appeals in an impeachment.

Think about it. Suppose that Clinton had been impeached. Would you have wanted him to be in a President/not-President limbo for months waiting for the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court? Would you expect the Supreme Court to have nullified the sentence or perhaps to remand it back to the Senate for a whole new trial?

Would you have wanted Clinton to removed from the Presidency and moved out of the White House only to be made President again by the Supreme Court and moved back into the White House until the Senate retried the impeachment and then him removed from the Presidency and moved out of the White House again?

The decisiveness brought about by the fact that a conviction/acquittal in an impeachment is final is very important for our country to move forward.

---

If the senate claimed they removed him with a majority vote rather than a vote by 2/3rds. Yes I would want the SC to overturn that nonsense. That is actually spelled out in the constitution.

If the senate extorted a witness, or tortured a witness for testimony, I'd also want the Executive branch & SC to step in. Constitutional powers shouldn't trump laws or constitutional rights.

---

It is just about impossible to imagine the Senate trying to claim an impeachment conviction without at least a 2/3 vote. Without a 2/3 vote for conviction, one is not convicted in an impeachment trial by the US Senate.

Are you also worried about the possibility of Trump being made to testify while standing on his head?

FriscoKid said:

---

Philbin is destroying your due process argument right now.

---

Who's that? I think I've heard the name before but don't know who it is.

Gigem314 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

In the case of the President, the President gets many more advantages than a criminal defendant. For example, Trump was permitted to have a presence in front of the judiciary committee and to cross examine witnesses even though he turned down the offer. Remember that the impeachment by the House is not a trial.

---

There were no fact witnesses in the House Judiciary proceedings. And the deadline for White Counsel to report to Judiciary hadn't even passed before Pelosi instructed Nadler to craft the articles and truncate the proceedings in the House. White House Counsel was still trying to find out from Nadler if they planned on having fact witnesses, who when? Nadler refused to respond to their questions, opting instead to follow Pelosi's instructions and close the hearings.

Having some legal scholars give their opinions and then counsel for the majority and minority to answer Judiciary's questions, is not a hearing whereby Trump would be able to face his true accusers, the fact witnesses.

---

The House Democrats certainly did a ridiculously horrible job at investigating the matter. I'm completely at a loss to understand how they thought it was a good idea not to interview every fact witness that they could find and are now unprepared to prosecute Trump. The only thing they can hope for is a Hail Mary pass and they aren't at all likely to get that.

---

I think it's very simple...they were driven not by a desire to seek the truth...they were driven by their emotional desire make Trump look bad. There was no real method to the case...because there wasn't one.

At least in the case of Bill Clinton, he actually did something worthy of impeachment by lying under oath. But even then, you had R's driven by their emotional desire to make Clinton look bad...and some of them turned it into a moral argument that he was unfit for office and the American people tuned it out.

---

They never went into this thinking they could get him removed. They just wanted to drag him through the mud all of the election year and bloody him up as much as possible.

They know they wouldn't get anything out of the witnesses, so they make it the Senate's problem and accuse the witnesses and Senate Republicans of a cover up.

Remember Pelosi's "impeachment is forever" comment? They just want to campaign and disrupt on it to the max extent possible.

I'm not the one whose stance is there are no limitations on impeachment proceedings. The senate should have VERY WIDE latitude on the rules.

But they shouldn't be able to 1. Break federal law 2. Violate the constitutional rights to an absurd degree.

hbtheduce said:

---

eric76 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

its not a criminal trial, so no right to an attorney.

---

Everyone deserves representation. It would be civil war if congress tried to ignore a fundamental human right like that.

---

what you think everyone deserves and what the constitution requires are not the same things.


I agree that there would be huge outrage if Trump was not allowed to have attorneys at this trial. But that does not change the constitutional requirements.

---

Due process is in the constitution. Congress doesn't get to **** on the constitutional rights of a president during their impeachment and trial.

---

Due process is in the Constitution, but only with regards to criminal trials. In the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments, the requirement is very clearly stated that it applies when a person is facing the loss of life, liberty, or property which are the outcomes if found guilty in a criminal trial, not an impeachment. No impeachment defendant is ever facing the loss of life, liberty, or property as a result of the impeachment trial except, in some cases, in the loss of his ability to run for public office in the future.

In any event, President Trump is not being denied due process.

---

Correct, every impeachment trial has AUTOMATICALLY recognized constitutional rights in previous trials. It would be VERY concerning if elected officials ignored our founding principals for a political removal, rather than one based on crimes.

You are arguing the senate should destroy the constitution to protect the constitution. It lays out the MOST FAIR SYSTEM for determining crimes.

---

I'm making no such argument. I'm arguing that the very clear point that the Constitution guarantees due process only when the defendant faces the loss of life, liberty, or property.

When one faces the loss of his job via an impeachment trial, the Constitution does not guarantee due process.

The reality is, though, that the defendants in impeachment trials are afforded due process.

eric76 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Philbin is destroying your due process argument right now.

---

Who's that? I think I've heard the name before but don't know who it is.

---

You aren't even listening to the trial? How can you make arguments like you are making if you aren't informed?

He is a lawyer for the WH.

FriscoKid said:

---

eric76 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Philbin is destroying your due process argument right now.

---

Who's that? I think I've heard the name before but don't know who it is.

---

You aren't even listening to the trial? How can you make arguments like you are making if you aren't informed?

He is a lawyer for the WH.

---

Eric claimed that the House Impeachment Inquiry was fair. He lost all credibility with that statement.

Quote:

---

Due process is in the Constitution, but only with regards to criminal trials.

---

The constitutional rights regarding due process afforded in the Constitution have repeatedly been extended to both criminal and civil matters. The degree of protection afforded by such due process rights does vary depending upon what is at stake.

FriscoKid said:

---

eric76 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Philbin is destroying your due process argument right now.

---

Who's that? I think I've heard the name before but don't know who it is.

---

You aren't even listening to the trial? How can you make arguments like you are making if you aren't informed?

He is a lawyer for the WH.

---

I don't have time to listen right now -- in fact, I'm getting ready to leave the office for the rest of the day. I plan on going by the nursing home to visit my brother later today and they always have a tv turned on, but I bet that they aren't watching the impeachment trial.

Also, I watch very little tv.

wyoag93 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

eric76 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Philbin is destroying your due process argument right now.

---

Who's that? I think I've heard the name before but don't know who it is.

---

You aren't even listening to the trial? How can you make arguments like you are making if you aren't informed?

He is a lawyer for the WH.

---

Eric claimed that the House Impeachment Inquiry was fair. He lost all credibility with that statement.

---

I'm not a tv addict. So sue me.

The dumbest thing about this entire thread is the title. "Flipped"? How does a guy who outwardly has been disloyal to Trump flip exactly? Nice trick.

That's like saying Romney flipped. If there was a Weasel, Spineless Bingo Card Romney would be the "Free" space every game.

Better learn your people.

eric76 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

its not a criminal trial, so no right to an attorney.

---

Everyone deserves representation. It would be civil war if congress tried to ignore a fundamental human right like that.

---

what you think everyone deserves and what the constitution requires are not the same things.


I agree that there would be huge outrage if Trump was not allowed to have attorneys at this trial. But that does not change the constitutional requirements.

---

Due process is in the constitution. Congress doesn't get to **** on the constitutional rights of a president during their impeachment and trial.

---

Due process is in the Constitution, but only with regards to criminal trials. In the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments, the requirement is very clearly stated that it applies when a person is facing the loss of life, liberty, or property which are the outcomes if found guilty in a criminal trial, not an impeachment. No impeachment defendant is ever facing the loss of life, liberty, or property as a result of the impeachment trial except, in some cases, in the loss of his ability to run for public office in the future.

In any event, President Trump is not being denied due process.

---

I would argue that this is a matter of interpretation. Has this ever been brought before SCOTUS? Does someone really want to get in front of the American people and argue that in what is undeniably a trial the President does not have the rights outlined in the constitution?

Sorry about your brother. Have a good evening.

eric76 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

eric76 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Philbin is destroying your due process argument right now.

---

Who's that? I think I've heard the name before but don't know who it is.

---

You aren't even listening to the trial? How can you make arguments like you are making if you aren't informed?

He is a lawyer for the WH.

---

I don't have time to listen right now -- in fact, I'm getting ready to leave the office for the rest of the day. I plan on going by the nursing home to visit my brother later today and they always have a tv turned on, but I bet that they aren't watching the impeachment trial.

Also, I watch very little tv.

---

Well the things you are arguing are getting crushed by Patrick Philbin right now. Listening to the first part of his presentation might help if you are really interested in the counter argument.

Quote:

---

The dumbest thing about this entire thread is the title. "Flipped"? How does a guy who outwardly has been disloyal to Trump flip exactly?

---

How do you define "disloyal"? I can't think of anything that Bolton has done that I would call disloyal.

wyoag93 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

eric76 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Philbin is destroying your due process argument right now.

---

Who's that? I think I've heard the name before but don't know who it is.

---

You aren't even listening to the trial? How can you make arguments like you are making if you aren't informed?

He is a lawyer for the WH.

---

Eric claimed that the House Impeachment Inquiry was fair. He lost all credibility with that statement.

---

To be fair, he lost all credibility with regards to legal matters years ago on this forum. He's been patently wrong on pretty much every argument he's made in every court case he's discussed.

AG 2000' said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

In the case of the President, the President gets many more advantages than a criminal defendant. For example, Trump was permitted to have a presence in front of the judiciary committee and to cross examine witnesses even though he turned down the offer. Remember that the impeachment by the House is not a trial.

---

There were no fact witnesses in the House Judiciary proceedings. And the deadline for White Counsel to report to Judiciary hadn't even passed before Pelosi instructed Nadler to craft the articles and truncate the proceedings in the House. White House Counsel was still trying to find out from Nadler if they planned on having fact witnesses, who when? Nadler refused to respond to their questions, opting instead to follow Pelosi's instructions and close the hearings.

Having some legal scholars give their opinions and then counsel for the majority and minority to answer Judiciary's questions, is not a hearing whereby Trump would be able to face his true accusers, the fact witnesses.

---

The House Democrats certainly did a ridiculously horrible job at investigating the matter. I'm completely at a loss to understand how they thought it was a good idea not to interview every fact witness that they could find and are now unprepared to prosecute Trump. The only thing they can hope for is a Hail Mary pass and they aren't at all likely to get that.

---

I think it's very simple...they were driven not by a desire to seek the truth...they were driven by their emotional desire make Trump look bad. There was no real method to the case...because there wasn't one.

At least in the case of Bill Clinton, he actually did something worthy of impeachment by lying under oath. But even then, you had R's driven by their emotional desire to make Clinton look bad...and some of them turned it into a moral argument that he was unfit for office and the American people tuned it out.

---

They never went into this thinking they could get him removed. They just wanted to drag him through the mud all of the election year and bloody him up as much as possible.

They know they wouldn't get anything out of the witnesses, so they make it the Senate's problem and accuse the witnesses and Senate Republicans of a cover up.

Remember Pelosi's "impeachment is forever" comment? They just want to campaign and disrupt on it to the max extent possible.

---

Yep. I think impeachment actually was Pelosi's way of making a deal with the Squad to get them off the front page and as the face of the Dem Party as Trump was winning big while they were in the news. Everything since then has been them putting an impeachment together without a real impeachable offense. Lies, omissions, no fact witnesses, no crimes, stunningly vague impeachment articles that make no sense.

Since then, its been trying to put lipstick on a pig to brand Trump with the scarlet letter "I" and try to get a couple R Senators to vote for removal so they can claim bipartisan support.

LeisureSuitLarry said:

---

---

Scott Adams, Ben Shapiro, and Mick Mulvany have all been saying it from the beginning. The QPQ isn't the problem as long as Trump was investigating the 2016 election and not SOLELY trying to tamper with the 2020 election.

BTW, this is starting to uncover a lot of swamp creatures.

Maplethorpe is not going to be happy.

eric76 said:

---

wyoag93 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

eric76 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Philbin is destroying your due process argument right now.

---

Who's that? I think I've heard the name before but don't know who it is.

---

You aren't even listening to the trial? How can you make arguments like you are making if you aren't informed?

He is a lawyer for the WH.

---

Eric claimed that the House Impeachment Inquiry was fair. He lost all credibility with that statement.

---

I'm not a tv addict. So sue me.

---

Being a TV addict is irrelevant. If you had kept up with the House questioning of witnesses during the past three months you would have already known this. That doesn't require a TV, it requires an internet connection and curiousity. I know you have an internet connection, not nearly as convinced of the other.

Credibility? You have none.

FriscoKid said:

---

eric76 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

eric76 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Philbin is destroying your due process argument right now.

---

Who's that? I think I've heard the name before but don't know who it is.

---

You aren't even listening to the trial? How can you make arguments like you are making if you aren't informed?

He is a lawyer for the WH.

---

I don't have time to listen right now -- in fact, I'm getting ready to leave the office for the rest of the day. I plan on going by the nursing home to visit my brother later today and they always have a tv turned on, but I bet that they aren't watching the impeachment trial.

Also, I watch very little tv.

---

Well the things you are arguing are getting crushed by Patrick Philbin right now. Listening to the first part of his presentation might help if you are really interested in the counter argument.

---

One other thing before I go, I'm not particularly concerned about the actual trial. The House screwed it up long before now by not putting in the work necessary to do a proper investigation. The whole thing is just a show with no real purpose and is thus of little actual interest to me.

For what it's worth, I do strongly think that Trump did ask the Ukraine to conduct the investigation for his own personal gain. However, I don't really think it arises to the point of being impeachable, but the only people who's opinion really matters are the Senators.

I'm far more interested in understanding of impeachment trials in theory than I am of this particular trial. My arguments here are primarily about impeachment trials rather than of Trump's impeachment trial which I do believe to be a mistake.

If Philbin's counterargument is more about theory than about Trump in particular, then I'll be tempted to turn the tv on to see if they rebroadcast it tonight. If his arguments are more about why Trump should not be convicted because of the particulars of the case, I really don't care.

If he's arguing that Trump was denied due process, I'd surely see that as more spin than fact. After all, I seriously doubt that Trump got any less due process than any defendant in a criminal courtroom.

Quote:

---

If he's arguing that Trump was denied due process, I'd surely see that as more spin than fact. After all, I seriously doubt that Trump got any less due process than any defendant in a criminal courtroom.

---

He got none. All other impeached presidents were give this basic right.