51 - 49

Eagle-Eye said:
Wrong. Ever heard of a bench trial? That is a criminal trial without an need for witnesses.
Click to expand...

Eagle is completely wrong. A bench trial is a trial where a trial by judge, not by a jury. The witnesses are still called, but the judge makes the determination of who to believe.

There are trials without witnesses, such as trial by ordeal, or trial by combat, but we do not use those systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial


A Senate trial is a totally different animal. First it is political not criminal, second the senators are judge and jury a violation of a criminal trial. Sorry sport but you can't pick and choose between the two. Do you seriously believe the Senate is so uninformed of their constitutional responsibilities that they would violate the constitution?[/QUOTE]
 
Earl said:
No, it doesn’t. The trial is in the Senate and the Senate determines the rules.
Click to expand...

The Senate judges whether it is constitutional, but it is clear in this case the Senate was wrong. Trials always have witnesses in English Common Law.

The irony is that Earl was claiming the Supreme Court had overturned an impeachment. Impeachment has no process requirements in the Constitution, and the House is the final decider for what the process is.
 
Walt said:
Eagle is completely wrong. A bench trial is a trial where a trial by judge, not by a jury. The witnesses are still called, but the judge makes the determination of who to believe.

There are trials without witnesses, such as trial by ordeal, or trial by combat, but we do not use those systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial


A Senate trial is a totally different animal. First it is political not criminal, second the senators are judge and jury a violation of a criminal trial. Sorry sport but you can't pick and choose between the two. Do you seriously believe the Senate is so uninformed of their constitutional responsibilities that they would violate the constitution?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Excuse me Mr. Darrow where in your site does it say that witnesses are required in a bench trial. Let me help you It doesn't.
I'll help you again ever been to traffic court? The arresting officer does'nt always have to appear. Also is the Senate trial criminal or political? Admit it you are wrong and talking out your ass.
 
Eagle-Eye said:
Wrong. Ever heard of a bench trial? That is a criminal trial without an need for witnesses. A Senate trial is a totally different animal. First it is political not criminal, second the senators are judge and jury a violation of a criminal trial. Sorry sport but you can't pick and choose between the two. Do you seriously believe the Senate is so uninformed of their constitutional responsibilities that they would violate the constitution?
Click to expand...

Sure didn't stop the House.
 
Micawber said:
Originally Posted by Eagle-Eye
Wrong you believe impeachment and civil trials are the same. One is political the other criminal. 2 completely different animals.


It's more a case of you partisan traitors exploiting a lack of specific guidance, but you are too brainwashed and dishonest to admit that.
The idea that anything called a trial to remove (or not) a public official should not resemble a civil or criminal jurisprudential one is silly
to any reasonable mind acting in good faith. A rose by any other name... You call it what now then, a political exercise? or a sham? Which term is
most appropriate given the features of the creature you imagined? As it is called a trial in the Constitution, explain why it should not be anything like one? It should be interesting
watching you flail aimlessly before my inquisition. Witnesses and evidence and judges and juries are sine qua non of a trial in the US.

Methinks it is a case of such extreme obviousness and presumed knowledge it went unwritten.
Click to expand...

Witnesses are not required for a trial.
 
Walt said:
Eagle is completely wrong. A bench trial is a trial where a trial by judge, not by a jury. The witnesses are still called, but the judge makes the determination of who to believe.

There are trials without witnesses, such as trial by ordeal, or trial by combat, but we do not use those systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial


A Senate trial is a totally different animal. First it is political not criminal, second the senators are judge and jury a violation of a criminal trial. Sorry sport but you can't pick and choose between the two. Do you seriously believe the Senate is so uninformed of their constitutional responsibilities that they would violate the constitution?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Witnesses are not required in a trial.
 
Walt said:
Eagle is completely wrong. A bench trial is a trial where a trial by judge, not by a jury. The witnesses are still called, but the judge makes the determination of who to believe.

There are trials without witnesses, such as trial by ordeal, or trial by combat, but we do not use those systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial


A Senate trial is a totally different animal. First it is political not criminal, second the senators are judge and jury a violation of a criminal trial. Sorry sport but you can't pick and choose between the two. Do you seriously believe the Senate is so uninformed of their constitutional responsibilities that they would violate the constitution?
Click to expand...

Eagle is dead right. Witnesses are not required for a trial.
Wikipedia is not a law. Summarily discarded.
 
Walt said:
The Senate judges whether it is constitutional,
Click to expand...
WRONG. The Senate can form it's own rules. That's in the Constitution. The Senate does not have authority to change or interpret the Constitution.
Walt said:
but it is clear in this case the Senate was wrong.
Click to expand...
The Senate has authority to create it's own rules. YOU are wrong.
Walt said:
Trials always have witnesses in English Common Law.
Click to expand...
We don't use English Common Law here. This is the United States, dumbass. Oh, and witnesses are not required in trials in the UK either. So you are wrong there also.
Walt said:
The irony is that Earl was claiming the Supreme Court had overturned an impeachment.
Click to expand...
Lie. He made no such claim.
Walt said:
Impeachment has no process requirements in the Constitution,
Click to expand...
Yes it does. It very clearly specifies that the House has authority to impeach, and the Senate has authority to try the impeachment. It also very clearly specifies that impeachment of the President MUST involve some sort of high crime or misdemeanor. You crime was listed in the articles of impeachment delivered by the House.
Walt said:
and the House is the final decider for what the process is.
Click to expand...
WRONG. The House does NOT have authority to change the Constitution.
 
Eagle-Eye said:
Wrong. Ever heard of a bench trial? That is a criminal trial without an need for witnesses. A Senate trial is a totally different animal. First it is political not criminal, second the senators are judge and jury a violation of a criminal trial. Sorry sport but you can't pick and choose between the two. Do you seriously believe the Senate is so uninformed of their constitutional responsibilities that they would violate the constitution?
Click to expand...

A bench trial is a trial in which the judge renders a decision after hearing evidence. They can also present witnesses and testify in their own defense. You chose poorly in that example.
 
Nordberg said:
A bench trial is a trial in which the judge renders a decision after hearing evidence. They can also present witnesses and testify in their own defense. You chose poorly in that example.
Click to expand...

No I didn't your side says a trial must have witnesses. I gave you an example of a type trial that does not require witnesses. Sure witnesses can be called but not required.
 
Eagle-Eye said:
Excuse me Mr. Darrow where in your site does it say that witnesses are required in a bench trial. Let me help you It doesn't.
Click to expand...

A bench trial is like any other trial, just without a jury. Failure to appear does not go well at any trial.

Eagle-Eye said:
I'll help you again ever been to traffic court? The arresting officer does'nt always have to appear.
Click to expand...

Why would there even be an arresting officer in traffic court? If there was an arrest, it was more serious than traffic court.
 
Walt said:
A bench trial is like any other trial, just without a jury. Failure to appear does not go well at any trial.



Why would there even be an arresting officer in traffic court? If there was an arrest, it was more serious than traffic court.
Click to expand...

Walt did you graduate elementary school? You spew some of the most moronic crap. What does it take to get through your thick skull that not all trials require witnesses. And a Senate impeachment trial can have or not have witnesses.

Lastly when you are stopped for a traffic violation you are technically under arrest. Your signing the ticket is your release from custody. Think I'm wrong refuse to sign a ticket and see what happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top