The trial

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sculptor, Feb 9, 2021.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    and ultimately the world...
    and finally after 4 years you are stating what has been and is blatantly obvious...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    The senate trial is not a criminal trial. The end result is not a criminal conviction, but a vote by senators as to whether the president is guilty of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that would justify removing him from office. In no sense is that "not real".

    Try to focus. This thread is about the trial, not about how much congressmen are payed, or hospital treatment for children. If you prefer to discuss those matters, instead, start a separate thread.

    Who is "they"? It's like a conspiracy theory.

    What can be said for sure is that the Republican senators who talked strategy with Trump's legal team are in breach of the specific oath they took regarding the conduct of the trial.

    Huh? What are you talking about? How does it relate to the senate trial?

    You're all over the shop. If you want to talk about the Flint water issue, start a new thread. It has nothing to do with Trump's trial.

    At this point, you've lost the plot completely, and are now just generally ranting about your concerns. Try to focus.

    Which social model of ideological power and control are you referring to? How does this relate to Trump's trial?

    The trial was actually played out under the auspices of the US Constitution, in one of the two official chambers of the US legislature, by representatives freely* elected by the American people.

    And the connection between Trump's trial and that is ... what? Try to focus.

    Maybe if more of you people were less scatterbrained, things wouldn't have come to this. Remember, 46.8% of those who voted in the 2020 election voted for Trump. In 2016, it was 46.1%.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Trump and his party have been ignoring the constitution and it's intent for at least 4 years...perhaps you should preview some uploaded video evidence accumulate over his presidency. Then take a look at his twitter feed and bring yourself up to date before criticizing others.
    It has been and still is one hell of ride...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Obviously you haven't read anything I've written about American politics for the past 4 years.

    In what way? Which parts did they ignore?
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    you can start with the Mueller report and work your way through the rest of his tenure as POTUS.
    and include his very first executive order #13769 (travel ban)
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2021
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Here is the Oath that each senator took before the impeachment trial. They also had to record that they had taken the oath, verifying that with their signatures:

    I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, Jr, President of the United States, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.”
    Some senators have already clearly broken this Oath they took to do "impartial justice". We'll see how it plays out for the rest of them shortly.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    So, nothing specific, then. Let's go back to talking about the trial, okay?
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    okay...
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Obviously a "trial" as specified in the constitution can not be a trial if the outcome is predetermined along party lines.
    The term kangaroo court is more appropriate as was witnessed in the first attempt to impeach Trump.

    so I can repeat with confidence my statement:
    and await your erudite rebuttal...
     
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Which has nothing to do with why he is now being impeached.

    You need to understand something here.

    Impeachment is wholly political. It is not a criminal trial.

    Secondly, on the rare off-chance this impeachment attempt is successful, the only thing that could happen is that he will be barred from running for office again.

    That is it.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    It can be a trial, just not a fair or impartial one, under those circumstances.

    A "kangaroo court" is a sham legal proceeding set-up in order to give the impression of a fair legal process. The verdict is predetermined - the accused will be found guilty of the crimes alleged.

    The Trump trial is the opposite of that, with a number of senators being apparently determined to acquit Trump of the charges, no matter what. They may make the trial a travesty of justice, but it won't be a kangaroo court.

    I'm not sure what you want me to rebut. I fully expect that not enough Republicans will vote that Trump incited the violent insurrection. I fully expect that many will ignore matters of justice and their duty, both under the Constitution and the oath they took, to prioritise what they imagine is their self-interest in gaining re-election in future and/or the endorsement of Trump when he runs for president in 2024.
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    It is interesting that the notion of a kangaroo Court can also apply to predetermination of either innocence or guilt. (debatable)
    A kangaroo court is a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides.[2] A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predetermined conclusion. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority which intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations.
    wiki...
    It is debatable because most often it has been used for the predetermining of guilt (popular use), but when reading the definitions around the web the only constant is the predetermination of an outcome.
    Predetermining the defendants acquittal ( innocence) is just as much a kangaroo court ( mock trial) as any other mock trial.
    no it can not be a trial if the outcome is predetermined. It can only be a mock trial. And the language used in the constitution certainly doesn't recommend a mock trial. A legitimate trial is assumed to be what is intended.
    I know it sounds a bit too semantic but if one swears an oath to the constitution the language and intent are extremely important. The Senators did not swear to hold a mock trial ( kangaroo court) they swore to uphold the constitution and as I opinioned earlier it appears that the Republican Senators in question have very little consideration towards fulfilling their oath of office and therefore anything is possible.
    Aside from relatively minor differences I fully agree with your posts and your speculations are on the mark.
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    true I guess but it has everything to do with the discussion I was having with JamesR.


    Oh I understand all too well but I wonder how any trial can ever be run by politicians.
    The constitution calls for a trial by politicians.... now that's a real concern regarding impartiality of process. IMO

    It also removes his pension benefits (about 250K pa(?)), his million dollar a year transportation perk etc.
    and helps prevent future presidents from being allowed to incite insurrection with impunity.
    If he is acquitted then future presidents and parties will certainly take his acquittal into account.
    There are other less tangible benefits, such as restoring faith in the constitution, democratic process, rule of law generally.

    As an aside it is worth noting that the claim of election rigging ( stolen elections ) is quite common. Myanmar, Belarus, Russia and a few African and South American nations have this issue just about every election. If Trump is acquitted it is highly likely any president that faces a loss at the poles can claim the vote to be rigged and his success stolen inciting rebellion against the democratic process.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2021
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Which is off topic, no?

    Well, not exactly.

    It's a system whereby "the people", through their elected representatives, decide.

    But it has always been a political endeavour..

    Only if he was impeached and 'convicted' while he was still the sitting President. Which he is not.

    Even the notion that he is not allowed to run again would only be able to come about if they vote to deny him that right.

    But he won't lose the rest of the perks.

    Why do you think they will take his acquittal into account? For what purpose? And restoring faith for whom? The 70+ million who voted for him have lost faith in the system because of this impeachment, while the 80+ million who voted for Biden feel that their faith in the system, the democratic process and rule of law is being restored because their guy won.

    So whose faith will be restored if he is not acquitted? And whose faith will be restored if he is acquitted?

    He's not the first to face impeachment (although he is the first to have been impeached twice), nor will he be the last.

    You are forgetting one important factor though..

    Trump is not like other politicians. He had been claiming voter fraud since the primaries each time he was beaten before he became President. This is his schtick. To wit, no one was surprised by his claims, nor were they surprised by what followed.
     
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    That's an interesting claim. Care to support it?
    or at least explain how you arrived at it...
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    It isn't a "Kangaroo Court".

    And you appear to forget that the Democrats are also determined to convict - ie - their outcome for the impeachment trial is predetermined.

    But you don't seem to have a problem with that. In fact, you have already determined that he is guilty, so I find your position kind of bizarre.

    I'm not defending Trump or the GOP. But you appear to be confused as to what an impeachment actually is and you also appear to be applying criminal aspects to the proceedings that simply are not there.

    Several members of the GOP have voted to impeach him and have signalled that they will vote to convict him. At least one who had been against impeachment has come out and said that he was now voting to convict after hearing and seeing the evidence.

    So no, the outcome is not pre-determined in that regard. While he is unlikely to be convicted, several have voted to impeach - going against party lines.

    At the end of the day, this is a political venture. Personally, I think Pence should have invoked and had him removed immediately after the riots. But that's just me.
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I do not believe I ever said it was...
     
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Are you saying that when the evidence indicates guilt then it is also a predetermined outcome by the prosecuting party?
    If so then that is truly bizarre!
    The evidence predetermines the outcome not the prosecutor
    Trump and his team have ample opportunity to defend their case.
     
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    You have been complaining about it being a pre-determined outcome for a few posts now.. Have you changed your mind?

    Only if reading and comprehension is an issue.

    I never said the prosecutor predetermined the outcome.
     

Share This Page