Impeachment Hearings

[GMDino]

(01-23-2020, 10:35 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I believe that was during a recess 

What I read was it was during the hearing.  They *are* allowed to leave for reasons.  I read 23 Republicans and 2 democrats left at various points.  

[*michaelsean*]

(01-23-2020, 10:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: What I read was it was during the hearing.  They *are* allowed to leave for reasons.  I read 23 Republicans and 2 democrats left at various points.  

I mean at least they aren't pretending.  I would say at least 95 have already decided, and they five that haven't are undecided due to political concerns.

[GMDino]

(01-23-2020, 11:10 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I mean at least they aren't pretending.  I would say at least 95 have already decided, and they five that haven't are undecided due to political concerns.

That's the kind of logic that got people to vote for Trump:  Well he's rude and an ass and lies all the time, but he speaks his mind. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-23-2020, 10:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: What I read was it was during the hearing.  They *are* allowed to leave for reasons.  I read 23 Republicans and 2 democrats left at various points.  

His twitter said "Catching up with Tucker Carlson during a recess"

Could be a lie 

[GMDino]

(01-23-2020, 11:43 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: His twitter said "Catching up with Tucker Carlson during a recess"

Could be a lie 

So I went and checked myself.

The time on the screen during his interview with Tucker is 8:39.

Caught up with @TuckerCarlson during trial recess and shared today’s big claim from Schiff - that you can’t trust elections in this country! Today’s message: overturn elections to save democracy. Unbelievable pic.twitter.com/kbE7kG77XT

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) January 23, 2020

 


C-SPAN's video shows Schiff still speaking at the same time.  Starts at 17:00
https://www.c-span.org/video/?468322-102/senate-impeachment-trial-day-3-part-3&playEvent



In fact during the interview you can see the hearing still going on in the inset on the screen.


Did Tucker say it was pre-recorded and play it right then?  I didn't see that bit of information yet.

[BmorePat87]

(01-23-2020, 12:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: So I went and checked myself.

The time on the screen during his interview with Tucker is 8:39.

Caught up with @TuckerCarlson during trial recess and shared today’s big claim from Schiff - that you can’t trust elections in this country! Today’s message: overturn elections to save democracy. Unbelievable pic.twitter.com/kbE7kG77XT

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) January 23, 2020

 


C-SPAN's video shows Schiff still speaking at the same time.  Starts at 17:00
https://www.c-span.org/video/?468322-102/senate-impeachment-trial-day-3-part-3&playEvent



In fact during the interview you can see the hearing still going on in the inset on the screen.


Did Tucker say it was pre-recorded and play it right then?  I didn't see that bit of information yet.

Sounds like he lied then 

[hollodero]

(01-23-2020, 11:10 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I mean at least they aren't pretending.

I'd rather see them at least pretending though.

Btw. I find it absurd that you all call this a "trial". This is as much a trial as a court case against Bill Cosby where the jury predominantly is from the "lifelong Bill Cosby fanclub" would be a "trial". Where the jury gets to gag the judge and let one of their own set the rules.

And sure they'd let the defense make their case. Witnesses and evidence though, now that would go too far already. The defense can show some documents and some questionings, but not from documents or people Bill Cosby rather wouldn't like to be seen or questioned, which the jury deems just fine. The defense rebuttal is saying Lalala. Then the jury would say they do not care about any of that, that enough is enough, that this is just a sham and that the accusers just don't like the Bill Cosby show and how this is the real issue. Then they'd call Bill Cosby a great guy and Bill Cosby would tweet, yes, that is true, the greatest ever, actually. Then they acquit. "Trial" over.

[Au165]

Has anyone seen the stuff in regards to the opinion from Nixon vs United States (1993) about the minimum threshold of what constitutes a "trial" in an impeachment setting? Essentially the discussion is around the idea that a impeachment trial without witnesses would not meet the minimum threshold of what a judge would consider a trial making an impeachment acquittal unconstitutional. While the senate can set the rules there is still a requirement to meet a minimum standard that a judge would reasonably conclude was a trial.

What is interesting is a one of the examples given in a concurring opinion...

Quote:One can, nevertheless, envision different and unusual circumstances that might justify a more searching review of impeachment proceedings. If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results, convicting, say, upon a coin toss, or upon a summary determination that an officer of the United States was simply" 'a bad guy,'" ante, at 239 (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment), judicial interference might well be appropriate.

Or say stating before the trial they are not impartial and will look to dismiss the trial as quickly as possible. Now do I see the SCOTUS stepping in? Probably not because it is stacked currently to favor the current administration. It does however raise another question about an unconstitutional acquittal of the President and what that means.

It's at least a fascinating question to think about. 

[*michaelsean*]

(01-23-2020, 11:19 AM)GMDino Wrote: That's the kind of logic that got people to vote for Trump:  Well he's rude and an ass and lies all the time, but he speaks his mind. 

I have no idea what that has to do with my comment.

[GMDino]

(01-23-2020, 12:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I have no idea what that has to do with my comment.

Someone happy that an elected official is "telling the truth" about his not caring...when in reality he's ignoring everything just to make his party happy.  Same thing voters love about DJT:  He feeds them the "truth".

[*michaelsean*]

(01-23-2020, 12:23 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'd rather see them at least pretending though.

Btw. I find it absurd that you all call this a "trial". This is as much a trial as a court case against Bill Cosby where the jury predominantly is from the "lifelong Bill Cosby fanclub" would be a "trial". Where the jury gets to gag the judge and let one of their own set the rules.

And sure they'd let the defense make their case. Witnesses and evidence though, now that would go too far already. The defense can show some documents and some questionings, but not from documents or people Bill Cosby rather wouldn't like to be seen or questioned, which the jury deems just fine. The defense rebuttal is saying Lalala. Then the jury would say they do not care about any of that, that enough is enough, that this is just a sham and that the accusers just don't like the Bill Cosby show and how this is the real issue. Then they'd call Bill Cosby a great guy and Bill Cosby would tweet, yes, that is true, the greatest ever, actually. Then they acquit. "Trial" over.

It's not really a trial.  Not like a criminal trial.  First of all, none of the jurors would pass voir dire. (Fancy French words for Arturo.) I don't think a lot of the evidence would be admitted as it seems a good amount of it is opinion and speculation which is acceptable in this setting.  

[*michaelsean*]

(01-23-2020, 12:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: Someone happy that an elected official is "telling the truth" about his not caring...when in reality he's ignoring everything just to make his party happy.  Same thing voters love about DJT:  He feeds them the "truth".

Yeah that's not what I said.  I said, in  a not so serious manner, that with a few exceptions we all know they've all decided, and some of them aren't pretending otherwise.  That doesn't excuse they for having pre-decided.  

[GMDino]

(01-23-2020, 12:36 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah that's not what I said.  I said, in  a not so serious manner, that with a few exceptions we all know they've all decided, and some of them aren't pretending otherwise.  That doesn't excuse they for having pre-decided.  

I'm aware what you meant...I'm adding that many Trump voters love his "real talk" even if it is devoid of facts or reality.

[hollodero]

(01-23-2020, 12:34 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's not really a trial. Not like a criminal trial.

Yeah that's my point.

(01-23-2020, 12:34 PM)michaelsean Wrote: First of all, none of the jurors would pass voir dire. (Fancy French words for Arturo.) I don't think a lot of the evidence would be admitted as it seems a good amount of it is opinion and speculation which is acceptable in this setting.  

Hm, evidence is evidence, and the circumstantial evidence would probably be admitted I'd guess. Maybe not everything the managers say would fly, same goes for the defenders - who don't say much of anything of substance. That might be true.

But first and foremost, there is no judge and no impartial jury. Which makes the usage of the word "trial" so puzzling.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-23-2020, 12:46 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah that's my point.



Hm, evidence is evidence, and the circumstantial evidence would probably be admitted I'd guess. Maybe not everything the managers say would fly, same goes for the defenders - who don't say much of anything of substance. That might be true.

But first and foremost, there is no judge and no impartial jury. Which makes the usage of the word "trial" so puzzling.

Lack of a better word?  I mean it's not a trial as we've come to understand a criminal trial, but I guess it's still technically a trial. 

[hollodero]

(01-23-2020, 01:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Lack of a better word?  I mean it's not a trial as we've come to understand a criminal trial, but I guess it's still technically a trial. 

Yeah, my issue is rather how people, sure mainly from the prosecution, argue how in any regular trial, this and that should be natural.
I'd wish the defense/jury/Mitch would just respond by admitting that this is not a trial and hence those points are moot. But all sides keep up the appearance and perpetuate the picture of a trial. Which is deliberately misleading.

[Dill]

(01-23-2020, 01:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Lack of a better word?  I mean it's not a trial as we've come to understand a criminal trial, but I guess it's still technically a trial. 

Well, yes. It is very much a trial. And constructed on analogy to criminal trials, with some deviations at critical points--like a president doesn't actually have to violate a criminal statute to be impeached and the jury is at the same time the judge.

[BmorePat87]

(01-23-2020, 12:24 PM)Au165 Wrote: Has anyone seen the stuff in regards to the opinion from Nixon vs United States (1993) about the minimum threshold of what constitutes a "trial" in an impeachment setting? Essentially the discussion is around the idea that a impeachment trial without witnesses would not meet the minimum threshold of what a judge would consider a trial making an impeachment acquittal unconstitutional. While the senate can set the rules there is still a requirement to meet a minimum standard that a judge would reasonably conclude was a trial.

What is interesting is a one of the examples given in a concurring opinion...


Or say stating before the trial they are not impartial and will look to dismiss the trial as quickly as possible. Now do I see the SCOTUS stepping in? Probably not because it is stacked currently to favor the current administration. It does however raise another question about an unconstitutional acquittal of the President and what that means.

It's at least a fascinating question to think about. 

Roberts doesn't want to answer political questions, so I am not sure how he'd view this argument. Strictly by the Constitution, the Senate has a ton of room to do whatever they want. Moving into the realm of intent of the framers, Roberts may say "not for me to say". 

[Dill]

(01-23-2020, 09:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: Awhile back there was a discussion on here about how to approach people who believe differently than you.  Trump supporters was the main part of the discussion if I remember correctly.

So this is how FOX "news" is covering the hearings.

Can't imagine why Trump supporters have a twisted idea of what is really happening.

Heck some Senators left to do interviews on FOX *during* the hearing.

As they complain about "no evidence" and refuse to allow evidence that was withheld by Trump.

I was listening to the Brian Kilmeade show this morning. Some outraged senator was on explaining how sitting through the hearings was like when your parents made you sit through boring sermons in church while you were a kid--except the same sermon is repeated every two hours. There are no material facts to the case, no new facts since December, no case at all--just a promise to undo an election. A "farce" and a "sham" and a "circus."

This then was followed, to my amazement, by this question--"How is Trump's threat to withhold aid any different or more corrupt than Biden's threat to withhold aid if the Ukraininan prosecutor Shokin was not fired?"   I didn't catch this guy's name (interview had already started when I turned on the radio) but how can anyone who understands the case ask a question like that, which excludes any distinction between someone publicly carrying out an official US government policy and someone working a private (and illegal) deal under the table?

Either the senator does not know the law, or he does know it, but knows his listeners don't know it, and so he can keep repeating what everyone in Fox-world "knows."  He and Kilmeade are counting on their listeners NOT to go into the case in any depth, but to just follow commentators assurance that no evidence has been presented, no laws violated, and facts and law don't matter anyway because three Democrats wanted to impeach Trump from the get go.

Follow the outraged commentators, not the legal arguments and presented evidence.

[hollodero]

(01-23-2020, 01:21 PM)Dill Wrote: This then was followed, to my amazement, by this question--"How is Trump's threat to withhold aid any different or more corrupt than Biden's threat to withhold aid if the Ukraininan prosecutor Shokin was not fired?"   I didn't catch this guy's name (interview had already started when I turned on the radio) but how can anyone who understands the case ask a question like that, which excludes any distinction between someone publicly carrying out an official US government policy and someone working a private (and illegal) deal under the table?

You're not seriously asking that question, right?

The reason is that many viewers are not interested in any facts. They just look at this with one sole purpose: To find someting that can be used against the democratic accusers. Anything.

Behaviour that can be witnessed all the time, even on this boards.