51 - 49

Marxist Mason said:
I was spot on :laugh:
Click to expand...

You spot on?

7hCbP4e.gif
 
Marxist Mason said:
A trial with no witnesses isn't a trial
Click to expand...

Ok! Prove it show me something to back your claims! Easy to shoot your mouth off harder to prove your claim. This may help if you can understand what it is saying.

But don’t expect the Senate proceedings to mirror what happens in a court of law.
The Constitution gives the Senate “the sole Power to try all Impeachments” but is silent about the trial’s mechanics. In practice, Senate proceedings have come to differ dramatically from court trials on everything from the admissibility of evidence, the form of punishment and the possibility of appeal.

Here are five big differences to understand as the Senate prepares to begin Trump’s impeachment trial.

Senators are both jury and judge
In a court trial, the jury plays a largely passive role for much of the proceeding. Jury members typically spend the bulk of their time hearing evidence, before being asked to render a verdict.
A judge, on the other hand, actively shapes the trial by interpreting and applying the governing rules and procedures. Judges rule on matters such as the admissibility of evidence and other legal issues that can define the trial’s contours in key ways.
Most importantly, in a trial the jury and judge are two separate entities.
During a Senate impeachment trial, however, these two functions merge into one single body consisting of the upper chamber’s 100 senators, who act as both jury and judge.

The Constitution calls on the Supreme Court’s chief justice to preside over a presidential Senate impeachment trial. But the standing Senate rules make clear it is the lawmakers themselves who have ultimate authority over all critical aspects of the proceeding.
“The senators have power over how the trial unfolds,” said Ian Ostrander, a political science professor at Michigan State University. “They are not passive jurors.”

There is no standard of proof
The standard of proof refers to the obligation that a plaintiff or prosecutor has to meet to effectively prove their case at trial.

Sponsored Content
Why does Canada have the G7’s lowest overall tax rate on new business investment?
By Invest in Canada
In a civil case, the burden to be carried is a “preponderance of evidence,” meaning a greater than 50 percent chance the assertion is true. In criminal trials, the measure is guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
But in Senate impeachment trials no such burden, or standard, exists.
“There is no established or uniform burden of proof,” said Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor and author of “Impeachment: What Everyone Needs to Know.” “In the Senate, every senator decides for himself or herself what burden applies.”

There are no rules of evidence
Court trials usually involve rules of evidence, particularly when juries are involved.
The applicable rules vary from court to court, with some tribunals using the entire Federal Rules of Evidence, which cover everything from relevance to standards for determining the admissibility of expert opinion and exceptions to the general prohibition against hearsay.
“In any court there’s going to be some set of rules about what evidence can be received or not,” said Frank Bowman, a University of Missouri law professor and author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump.”
“That’s not what you’ve got in impeachment,” Bowman continued. “There aren’t any rules of evidence.”

An important distinction is that an impeachment trial is more of a political rather than legal exercise. So, unlike in a criminal trial, there is no requirement that a president be charged with an actual crime.
This means that as senators consider the two articles against Trump — for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — they face a vastly more open-ended and less structured assessment of wrongdoing than that of a trial jury.
That is already manifesting itself in a fight between Democrats and Republicans over whether to allow witnesses and when to make those decisions.
“Every senator gets to decide for himself or herself what are the facts and the law,” Bowman said.

The punishment is political
When criminal defendants lose their case, they face the loss of liberty or property, and in jurisdictions that allow the death penalty, loss of life. In civil cases, the punishment usually takes the form of a defendant paying money to the plaintiff.

But just as an impeachment proceeding is political in nature, so is its final sanction.
Trump is expected to be acquitted by the Republican-controlled Senate, where a two-thirds vote is required for a conviction. But in the highly unlikely event that he is convicted, Trump’s penalty would be removal from office, a remedy with far-reaching political implications.
“At stake is not only whether the current president stays in office, but the lessons to future presidents as to what they can, and cannot, get away with,” said Charles Tiefer, a University of Baltimore law professor.

The outcome can’t be appealed
In legal proceedings, it is common for a losing party to appeal a determination at trial up to a higher court. But the Constitution endows the Senate with the “sole” authority over impeachment trials, so there is no higher body to hear an appeal, some experts say.
“That means if there are perceived procedural irregularities, or a senator is perceived to violate his or her oath, there is no recourse in the judicial system,” said Robert Tsai, a constitutional expert and law professor at American University.

According to Tsai, the only available remedy against a senator who violated their oath to render impartial justice during the trial would be to seek to expel a senator, or simply seek to have them voted out of office.
Other impeachment scholars say that while judicial review of the Senate trial result is generally unavailable, there are some limited circumstances when a court can step in.
The Constitution requires that senators swear an oath before the proceeding, and long-standing Senate rules on impeachment trials describe that oath as a promise to “do impartial justice.”
“If a senator does not make the oath or makes a false oath, that should be reviewable,” said James Robenalt, an attorney with the firm Thompson Hine and an expert on Watergate
Click to expand...
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/478089-how-impeachment-differs-from-court-trials
 
Jack said:
Most Trials have Witnesses. Bolton was ready to testify, guess we'll read all about it is his upcoming Book.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is the Democrats who called 17-0 witnesses and allowed no cross examinations in the house were wrong?
 
Jack said:
Most Trials have Witnesses. Bolton was ready to testify, guess we'll read all about it is his upcoming Book.
Click to expand...

I've yet to see a definition of trial that says witnesses. What all of them do say is that a trial is presenting information.
 
Eagle-Eye said:
Sorry Jack but Schiff has already asked Bolton to testify and Bolton refused.
Click to expand...

Bolton refused the House and only said he'd agree to testify in the Senate because he knew they'd never agree to subpoena him.

Now he can get the maximum number of sales for his book.
 
Marxist Mason said:
That's why the Senate responsibility is to subpoena Bolton.
You problem is you assume the Senate Republicans job is to protect Trump.
Click to expand...

Wrong you believe impeachment and civil trials are the same. One is political the other criminal. 2 completely different animals.
 
Micawber said:
What should it be like? No witnesses, preordained by co-conspirators who announce closed minds and bias?
Because that is what this one is like.

You like a marked deck of cards and your shit eating grin. That's not fair or just, it's as unAmerican as card cheating,
and you could have been shot for it in the old west.

Your administration has been illegitimate from day one, and we have done everything by the book in order to root out
your cheating. That's all that will be recorded in this last gasp Republican fascist episode.

You are not an American. If you support Trump, you are unworthy of my country and brotherhood. You are a criminal enabler.
You want a crime lord to run the USA. You want a guy who doesn't know where Kansas City is running geopolitics. You want
an adultering porn star fucking creep heading the moral majority. You want an election cheater running a democratic party.
You want to ban entire religions from immigration. You consume misinformation and enjoy that like a nickel movie.

I hate all of you Trump supporters.
Click to expand...

So just curious; are you leaving, after Trump is re-elected in 2020??
 
Eagle-Eye said:
Wrong you believe impeachment and civil trials are the same. One is political the other criminal. 2 completely different animals.
Click to expand...

The Constitution specifically says a trial should happen in the Senate. The word trial always refers to a thing with witnesses in English Common Law.
 
Walt said:
The Constitution specifically says a trial should happen in the Senate. The word trial always refers to a thing with witnesses in English Common Law.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
Walt said:
The Constitution specifically says a trial should happen in the Senate. The word trial always refers to a thing with witnesses in English Common Law.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t.

The trial is in the Senate and the Senate determines the rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top