|
Post by oldarmybear on Dec 12, 2019 19:45:55 GMT -5
McConnell will move to acquit Trump if he's impeached, not merely dismiss charges, 2 Republican senators say (CNN)Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to hold a final vote to acquit President Donald Trump, should he be impeached, when a majority of senators believe his trial has run its course instead of holding a vote on dismissing the articles of impeachment, two Republican senators told CNN on Wednesday. Republicans want to have a vote on acquittal -- to clear the President of the charges against him -- not simply rely on a 51-vote threshold procedural motion to dismiss the hotly disputed case. The Constitution mandates 67 votes are required to convict the President and remove him from office, a barrier widely considered too high to be reached in this case. One vote McConnell can't rely on is that of Vice President Mike Pence, who has "no role in impeachment," according to a GOP leadership aide, despite being president of the Senate with the mandate to break ties. Pence's power, which applies to legislation and nominations, isn't in effect when the Senate is weighing removing his boss, an obvious conflict of interest since he would replace Trump if he were removed. Instead, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would preside at the trial and any tie motions would fail. One of the senators, speaking anonymously, said McConnell would not call a vote on a motion to proceed to the impeachment articles unless he knew he had the 51 votes needed to end the trial, which would then set up a final vote on the articles themselves. On that final vote, 67 votes would be needed to convict Trump and remove him from office. The other senator, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, said it "would make more sense" to move to vote on the articles of impeachment -- with their 67-vote requirement -- than on a motion to dismiss and "decide this on a 51-vote threshold, with the potential tie and all the recriminations that would flow from that." McConnell hinted at this strategy when he spoke to reporters on Tuesday and said the Senate would have two choices after hearing opening arguments from the House impeachment managers and the President's defense counsel. "It could go down the path of calling witnesses and basically having another trial or it could decide -- and again, 51 members could make that decision -- that they've heard enough and believe they know what would happen and could move to vote on the two articles of impeachment," he said. "Those are the options. No decisions have been made yet." www.cnn.com/2019/12/11/politics/mcconnell-impeachment-trial-acquittal/index.html
|
|
|
Post by katie5445 on Dec 25, 2019 1:44:37 GMT -5
Nope, I'm in the Biden crowd, not quite hard core is it? Yep Skrump I'm listening and waiting for transparency and that means those guys should testify. If Trump hasn't done wrong then he hasn't done wrong, my politics and policies I support don't matter and I'd just have to wait till someone of my flavour is elected as in what has gone before. I support ideas, not a person and I'm not the best of democrats either, I could easily become Independent. That, Katie, flies in the face of the law of the United States of America. NOBODY has to prove they haven't done anything wrong. Prosecution needs to prove they have.
I suggest you do some reading on defense. Most attorneys that specialize in defense will tell their clients, depending on the crime, not to cooperate with police, not to talk to the press, not to take the stand. It is up to the prosecution to prove the crime.
When one is on the defense it is exactly not talk to the police, not cooperate, no take the stand, if you have no defense to provide.
|
|
|
Post by katie5445 on Dec 25, 2019 1:45:16 GMT -5
Trump has a defense to provide if he has one..........
|
|
|
Post by oldarmybear on Dec 25, 2019 16:42:42 GMT -5
The prosecutor is charged with proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The left in this case has not done so. Trump does not have to prove anything.
|
|
|
Post by katie5445 on Jan 4, 2020 1:57:33 GMT -5
Maybe not unless we hear from Pompeo, Rudy, Perry, Mulvany and those in the budget office. If I was innocent those persons would be on the stand, among others. Innocence could be cleared, if those persons stepped up to the plate, which is easily done, if you are innocent as when you are, you drag every possible person involved, you do not hide witnesses for your defense, you welcome them.
|
|
|
Post by skrumpie on Jan 4, 2020 9:10:18 GMT -5
Even you, Katie, in your self-thought perfection, do not know what you would do if you were accused of something and had to defend yourself.
Again, read up. In this country it is up to the prosecution to prove that the defendant broke any law or committed any crime. No defendant anywhere is required to put up a defense, and oftentimes attorneys for the defense will not put witnesses on the stand so that the prosecution cannot paint them as something they are not.
If you like the way Cuba does things, I hear the weather there is great this time of year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2020 10:10:44 GMT -5
Maybe not unless we hear from Pompeo, Rudy, Perry, Mulvany and those in the budget office. If I was innocent those persons would be on the stand, among others. Innocence could be cleared, if those persons stepped up to the plate, which is easily done, if you are innocent as when you are, you drag every possible person involved, you do not hide witnesses for your defense, you welcome them. IF one has to ADD additional witnesses, then why did the HOUSE go ahead and vote on an impeachment that is incomplete?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 5:58:06 GMT -5
Maybe not unless we hear from Pompeo, Rudy, Perry, Mulvany and those in the budget office. If I was innocent those persons would be on the stand, among others. Innocence could be cleared, if those persons stepped up to the plate, which is easily done, if you are innocent as when you are, you drag every possible person involved, you do not hide witnesses for your defense, you welcome them. WRONG. In ANY prosecution, it is up to the prosecution to PROVE their case with witnesses, evidence etc. The DEFENSE doesn't have to do a thing and can use procedures and existing rules to have evidence presented minimized AND not have witness testify. Prosecution here, the dumbocratic house doesn't have a case.
|
|
|
Post by oldarmybear on Jan 5, 2020 19:24:54 GMT -5
I am beginning to think that today's democratic party, collectively, doesn't have a frigging clue.
|
|
|
Post by katie5445 on Jan 6, 2020 20:14:52 GMT -5
Maybe not unless we hear from Pompeo, Rudy, Perry, Mulvany and those in the budget office. If I was innocent those persons would be on the stand, among others. Innocence could be cleared, if those persons stepped up to the plate, which is easily done, if you are innocent as when you are, you drag every possible person involved, you do not hide witnesses for your defense, you welcome them. WRONG. In ANY prosecution, it is up to the prosecution to PROVE their case with witnesses, evidence etc. The DEFENSE doesn't have to do a thing and can use procedures and existing rules to have evidence presented minimized AND not have witness testify. Prosecution here, the dumbocratic house doesn't have a case. There is and should be a difference between the trial of John Doe and the president of the US under impeachment.
|
|
|
Post by katie5445 on Jan 6, 2020 20:22:46 GMT -5
I am beginning to think that today's democratic party, collectively, doesn't have a frigging clue. John Bolton does, Rick Perry does, Mick Mulvany does, Kupperman does, the budget dept. that cuts checks do. The one thing that caught my attention as a kid, if you are going to commit a crime, do it on your own. As in Watergate, there is always a group and what is more unbelievable is using electronic devices and that includes Clinton to Tiger Woods to Weiner and the current admin., dumb shits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2020 0:06:24 GMT -5
WRONG. In ANY prosecution, it is up to the prosecution to PROVE their case with witnesses, evidence etc. The DEFENSE doesn't have to do a thing and can use procedures and existing rules to have evidence presented minimized AND not have witness testify. Prosecution here, the dumbocratic house doesn't have a case. There is and should be a difference between the trial of John Doe and the president of the US under impeachment. What SHOULD be and what EXISTS under the Constitution are TWO different things. WE operate under the CONSTITUTION AND not UNDER WHAT you THINK should BE. hellooooooo. THE PRESIDENT HAS no LESS rights than any other under the Constitution. HELLOOOO
|
|
|
Post by katie5445 on Jan 7, 2020 0:32:10 GMT -5
And I said he had less rights??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2020 8:30:12 GMT -5
And I said he had less rights?? YES as you said there should be a difference between John Doe and Trump! IF you are reducing the same rights a person has, for Trump, then he has less rights, OTHERWISE he does not have to participate nor contribute to the prosecution as any other has that right.
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Jan 10, 2020 12:49:55 GMT -5
And I said he had less rights?? YES as you said there should be a difference between John Doe and Trump! IF you are reducing the same rights a person has, for Trump, then he has less rights, OTHERWISE he does not have to participate nor contribute to the prosecution as any other has that right. Not to put too sharp a point on it, but the trial of an impeached President-of-the-United-States requires, as the Constitution commands, prosecuted by the United States House of Representatives, the entire elected Senate to populate his jury and be presided over by the Chief-Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Moreover, the "trial" will be played out in a set of procedural and evidentiary rules made up by the the self-same "jury" that will decide his (so far no "her") fate. In what way do your see those extraordinary differences between a John Doe trial in some circuit-court and tRump's impeachment trial as diminishing the pervy asshole's rights? Care to explain, Sparky?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2020 5:49:40 GMT -5
YES as you said there should be a difference between John Doe and Trump! IF you are reducing the same rights a person has, for Trump, then he has less rights, OTHERWISE he does not have to participate nor contribute to the prosecution as any other has that right. Not to put too sharp a point on it, but the trial of an impeached President-of-the-United-States requires, as the Constitution commands, prosecuted by the United States House of Representatives, the entire elected Senate to populate his jury and be presided over by the Chief-Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Moreover, the "trial" will be played out in a set of procedural and evidentiary rules made up by the the self-same "jury" that will decide his (so far no "her") fate. In what way do your see those extraordinary differences between a John Doe trial in some circuit-court and tRump's impeachment trial as diminishing the pervy asshole's rights? Care to explain, Sparky? Ok dummy. thee are NO rules of evidence applied here. The appearance is as such BUT the entire process is a political one, not a legal one although there are the superficial trappings. care to explain how you ever passed grade school?
|
|