Submitting evidence in a trial is a formality? It's process.GannonFan wrote:But isn't that just a formality? We're in a 24/7 news world, we've heard this evidence over and over again since this all began. Nothing new is being presented, simply just the formal acknowledgment that the evidence is "submitted". Why does that make a difference? Aren't we just getting hung up on a word rather than examining the evidence that's been in plain sight for months now? If a Senator is going to ignore the evidence it doesn't matter if it's "submitted" or not, they're already going to ignore it. And if a Senator is going to vote either to remove from office or not, they can and will already do that knowing all of this evidence, again, whether it is "submitted" or not. The House Managers get to talk for 24 hours about this evidence, heck, they could read it all if they really wanted to.Ibanez wrote: No, i'm saying that if the Senate doesn't allow the evidence to be admitted nor all any witnesses to be examined, then they are basically rubber stamping an acquittal. How can you possibly have a trial without presenting any evidence? Yes, we all know what has been said and what not, but evidence still needs to be submitted. It was done so in the Clinton Impeachment.
It all seems extremely shady to me.
The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Touche89Hen wrote:It is in Congress you know that?Ibanez wrote:It all seems extremely shady to me.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
- Skjellyfetti
- Anal
- Posts: 14411
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:56 pm
- I am a fan of: Appalachian
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
You think the impeachment trial in the Constitution is just supposed to be a vote on whether or not to convict based on evidence gather in the HoR? Not how other trials or impeachments have worked... but, ok.GannonFan wrote:But isn't that just a formality? We're in a 24/7 news world, we've heard this evidence over and over again since this all began. Nothing new is being presented, simply just the formal acknowledgment that the evidence is "submitted". Why does that make a difference? Aren't we just getting hung up on a word rather than examining the evidence that's been in plain sight for months now? If a Senator is going to ignore the evidence it doesn't matter if it's "submitted" or not, they're already going to ignore it. And if a Senator is going to vote either to remove from office or not, they can and will already do that knowing all of this evidence, again, whether it is "submitted" or not. The House Managers get to talk for 24 hours about this evidence, heck, they could read it all if they really wanted to.Ibanez wrote: No, i'm saying that if the Senate doesn't allow the evidence to be admitted nor all any witnesses to be examined, then they are basically rubber stamping an acquittal. How can you possibly have a trial without presenting any evidence? Yes, we all know what has been said and what not, but evidence still needs to be submitted. It was done so in the Clinton Impeachment.
It all seems extremely shady to me.
"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18038
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Hey, I'm all game, tell me how we did the Clinton and the Johnson impeachments were fundamentally different at this point. Sure, the HoR had more stuff in the Clinton one since we had a special prosecutor and that's where a lot of the formal evidence came from, but what new stuff came up during the trial in the Senate? Even with the witnesses, they basically said what they said when they were witnesses in the investigation (heck, sometimes they didn't even called them back and just used the recorded statements from the witnesses).Skjellyfetti wrote:You think the impeachment trial in the Constitution is just supposed to be a vote on whether or not to convict based on evidence gather in the HoR? Not how other trials or impeachments have worked... but, ok.GannonFan wrote:
But isn't that just a formality? We're in a 24/7 news world, we've heard this evidence over and over again since this all began. Nothing new is being presented, simply just the formal acknowledgment that the evidence is "submitted". Why does that make a difference? Aren't we just getting hung up on a word rather than examining the evidence that's been in plain sight for months now? If a Senator is going to ignore the evidence it doesn't matter if it's "submitted" or not, they're already going to ignore it. And if a Senator is going to vote either to remove from office or not, they can and will already do that knowing all of this evidence, again, whether it is "submitted" or not. The House Managers get to talk for 24 hours about this evidence, heck, they could read it all if they really wanted to.
We know what we need to know - Trump wanted an investigation into the Biden's ties in the Ukraine, he wanted to hold back the money that he couldn't legally hold back (for a month and a half at least) as a means of leverage, and when Congress wanted to investigate all of this during the impeachment inquiry Trump wasn't cooperative. And we have evidence of all of that. Oh, and Trump is a fairly despicable kind of guy to boot. The only decision now is whether to remove him from office for that. The details that are being argued over now do nothing to change any of that.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59305
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
I agree.GannonFan wrote:Hey, I'm all game, tell me how we did the Clinton and the Johnson impeachments were fundamentally different at this point. Sure, the HoR had more stuff in the Clinton one since we had a special prosecutor and that's where a lot of the formal evidence came from, but what new stuff came up during the trial in the Senate? Even with the witnesses, they basically said what they said when they were witnesses in the investigation (heck, sometimes they didn't even called them back and just used the recorded statements from the witnesses).Skjellyfetti wrote:
You think the impeachment trial in the Constitution is just supposed to be a vote on whether or not to convict based on evidence gather in the HoR? Not how other trials or impeachments have worked... but, ok.
We know what we need to know - Trump wanted an investigation into the Biden's ties in the Ukraine, he wanted to hold back the money that he couldn't legally hold back (for a month and a half at least) as a means of leverage, and when Congress wanted to investigate all of this during the impeachment inquiry Trump wasn't cooperative. And we have evidence of all of that. Oh, and Trump is a fairly despicable kind of guy to boot. The only decision now is whether to remove him from office for that. The details that are being argued over now do nothing to change any of that.
So...would you vote to remove based on the current evidence?
(someone should start a poll on this)
- 89Hen
- Supporter
- Posts: 39223
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
- I am a fan of: High Horses
- A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
It would be a very interesting poll.... NOT.kalm wrote:So...would you vote to remove based on the current evidence?
(someone should start a poll on this)
Yea - jso, kalm, jelly, trip, jeff, jon
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18038
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Nah, I wouldn't. I've already said that. I was good with the impeachment as it was clear he wasn't going to be removed from office. If the Dems had the votes in the Senate I would've been good with just the censure. I think removing a President from office is really significant stuff - once we get that ball rolling it'll be a battle to define the criteria to do that lower and lower everytime. These things should be slam dunks if we're going to kick a President out of office. I didn't think Clinton should've been booted even though he broke the law when he perjured himself (heck, getting disbarred for that crime was a significant punishment). We have an election coming up in November, that's when the rest of the country gets to vote on this. Kick him out then if we want.kalm wrote:I agree.GannonFan wrote:
Hey, I'm all game, tell me how we did the Clinton and the Johnson impeachments were fundamentally different at this point. Sure, the HoR had more stuff in the Clinton one since we had a special prosecutor and that's where a lot of the formal evidence came from, but what new stuff came up during the trial in the Senate? Even with the witnesses, they basically said what they said when they were witnesses in the investigation (heck, sometimes they didn't even called them back and just used the recorded statements from the witnesses).
We know what we need to know - Trump wanted an investigation into the Biden's ties in the Ukraine, he wanted to hold back the money that he couldn't legally hold back (for a month and a half at least) as a means of leverage, and when Congress wanted to investigate all of this during the impeachment inquiry Trump wasn't cooperative. And we have evidence of all of that. Oh, and Trump is a fairly despicable kind of guy to boot. The only decision now is whether to remove him from office for that. The details that are being argued over now do nothing to change any of that.
So...would you vote to remove based on the current evidence?
(someone should start a poll on this)
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18038
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
it's possible one of them could go with the "pee in the butt" voting option.89Hen wrote:It would be a very interesting poll.... NOT.kalm wrote:So...would you vote to remove based on the current evidence?
(someone should start a poll on this)
Yea - jso, kalm, jelly, trip, jeff, jon
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59305
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
So I take that as a no from you?89Hen wrote:It would be a very interesting poll.... NOT.kalm wrote:So...would you vote to remove based on the current evidence?
(someone should start a poll on this)
Yea - jso, kalm, jelly, trip, jeff, jon
- 89Hen
- Supporter
- Posts: 39223
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
- I am a fan of: High Horses
- A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
I'm more likely to vote yes than anyone I listed is to vote no. But if I had to vote, I would choose no.kalm wrote:So I take that as a no from you?89Hen wrote: It would be a very interesting poll.... NOT.
Yea - jso, kalm, jelly, trip, jeff, jon
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59305
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Because he’s innocent or the crimes don’t merit removal from office?89Hen wrote:I'm more likely to vote yes than anyone I listed is to vote no. But if I had to vote, I would choose no.kalm wrote:
So I take that as a no from you?
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18038
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Loaded question there. Do you write survey questions too on the side?kalm wrote:Because he’s innocent or the crimes don’t merit removal from office?89Hen wrote: I'm more likely to vote yes than anyone I listed is to vote no. But if I had to vote, I would choose no.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
- AZGrizFan
- Supporter
- Posts: 59959
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
- I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
- Location: Just to the right of center
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
yes.kalm wrote:Because he’s innocent or the crimes don’t merit removal from office?89Hen wrote: I'm more likely to vote yes than anyone I listed is to vote no. But if I had to vote, I would choose no.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
- 89Hen
- Supporter
- Posts: 39223
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
- I am a fan of: High Horses
- A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
well playedCAA Flagship wrote:It's procedure.kalm wrote:
So why even have a trial to begin with?
That's like asking why the FCS season is played when we all know who will win the NC game.
- 89Hen
- Supporter
- Posts: 39223
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
- I am a fan of: High Horses
- A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
No kidding.GannonFan wrote:Loaded question there. Do you write survey questions too on the side?kalm wrote:
Because he’s innocent or the crimes don’t merit removal from office?
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59305
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Huh?GannonFan wrote:Loaded question there. Do you write survey questions too on the side?kalm wrote:
Because he’s innocent or the crimes don’t merit removal from office?
If he’s innocent he hasn’t committed crimes. Fairly straightforward question.
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 19954
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
I'm not so sure of that, I could see Kalm voting no. Let's call it 50/50 with him.89Hen wrote:I'm more likely to vote yes than anyone I listed is to vote no. But if I had to vote, I would choose no.kalm wrote:
So I take that as a no from you?
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 19954
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
He's a New York real estate developer and a politician, there's no way he's innocent. Of course, I feel the same way about the majority of nationally elected politicians.kalm wrote:Huh?GannonFan wrote:
Loaded question there. Do you write survey questions too on the side?
If he’s innocent he hasn’t committed crimes. Fairly straightforward question.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59305
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Me too. But I was talking innocent of the crimes he’s been impeached for.UNI88 wrote:He's a New York real estate developer and a politician, there's no way he's innocent. Of course, I feel the same way about the majority of nationally elected politicians.kalm wrote:
Huh?
If he’s innocent he hasn’t committed crimes. Fairly straightforward question.
- AZGrizFan
- Supporter
- Posts: 59959
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
- I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
- Location: Just to the right of center
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
How about this answer: Because the HoR did a horrible job of making their case.kalm wrote:Huh?GannonFan wrote:
Loaded question there. Do you write survey questions too on the side?
If he’s innocent he hasn’t committed crimes. Fairly straightforward question.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
- 89Hen
- Supporter
- Posts: 39223
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
- I am a fan of: High Horses
- A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
You're a 50/50, kalm is not.UNI88 wrote:I'm not so sure of that, I could see Kalm voting no. Let's call it 50/50 with him.89Hen wrote: I'm more likely to vote yes than anyone I listed is to vote no. But if I had to vote, I would choose no.
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 19954
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Let me rephrase that - he is as likely to vote no as your are to vote yes.89Hen wrote:You're a 50/50, kalm is not.UNI88 wrote:
I'm not so sure of that, I could see Kalm voting no. Let's call it 50/50 with him.
Based on what I know, I would vote no. Do I think Trump and his minions' activities were ethically questionable? Yes. Do I think they rise to the level of impeachable offenses? No.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
- 89Hen
- Supporter
- Posts: 39223
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
- I am a fan of: High Horses
- A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
C'mon, he's a straight ballot voter who eats tofu.UNI88 wrote:Let me rephrase that - he is as likely to vote no as your are to vote yes.89Hen wrote: You're a 50/50, kalm is not.
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
Evidence and Witnesses were allowed and called during Clinton's trial. The Republicans - you know the people who said there were no witness with first hand knowledge - don't want someone like Bolton to testify.GannonFan wrote:Hey, I'm all game, tell me how we did the Clinton and the Johnson impeachments were fundamentally different at this point. Sure, the HoR had more stuff in the Clinton one since we had a special prosecutor and that's where a lot of the formal evidence came from, but what new stuff came up during the trial in the Senate? Even with the witnesses, they basically said what they said when they were witnesses in the investigation (heck, sometimes they didn't even called them back and just used the recorded statements from the witnesses).Skjellyfetti wrote:
You think the impeachment trial in the Constitution is just supposed to be a vote on whether or not to convict based on evidence gather in the HoR? Not how other trials or impeachments have worked... but, ok.
We know what we need to know - Trump wanted an investigation into the Biden's ties in the Ukraine, he wanted to hold back the money that he couldn't legally hold back (for a month and a half at least) as a means of leverage, and when Congress wanted to investigate all of this during the impeachment inquiry Trump wasn't cooperative. And we have evidence of all of that. Oh, and Trump is a fairly despicable kind of guy to boot. The only decision now is whether to remove him from office for that. The details that are being argued over now do nothing to change any of that.
It looks like Mitch has changed the resolution with regards to evidence. Good.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread
I think he's guilty as hell. However, i'm not sure his actions are impeachable.UNI88 wrote:Let me rephrase that - he is as likely to vote no as your are to vote yes.89Hen wrote: You're a 50/50, kalm is not.
Based on what I know, I would vote no. Do I think Trump and his minions' activities were ethically questionable? Yes. Do I think they rise to the level of impeachable offenses? No.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17