Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1001  
Old 02-07-2020, 10:55 PM
Elendil's Heir is online now
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 88,204
The Il Douchening
  #1002  
Old 02-08-2020, 10:53 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,451
Darth Hitler.

(Oh, you thought this already was his Dark side...)
  #1003  
Old 02-09-2020, 04:15 PM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
If there is any exculpatory explanation raised, you need to prove that it is unreasonable, to the satisfaction of whatever person you are trying to convince (be it me or a Senator or whoever).

~Max
Did Trump or his legal team bring one shred of exculpatory evidence?

Nope not a bit. Not a thing.

They did however try to ignore the constitution, and attempt to say that extortion really isn't illegal.

That was the 'defense'. A joke.

Ya know, extortion of an ally for personal gain using hundreds of millions of USA dollars isn't THAT bad. And heck, he was helping out his BFFF Vlad.

What's next?
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #1004  
Old 02-10-2020, 03:01 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,451
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/g...ly-justifiable

Guiliani says that evidence is coming over the next couple of months about how Il Douche was totally justified in all of his perfect actions! Not now, you understand, because its too soon. Couple of months, amazing stuff, incredible!

Quote:
“I think over the next couple of months, you’re going to see what he did was perfectly justifiable. The amount of crimes that Democrats committed in Ukraine are astounding.”
  #1005  
Old 02-10-2020, 07:37 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,750
Louisiana GOP censured Mitt Romney. They said nothing when former KKK leader David Duke ran for Senate as the GOP candidate in 1990 and he got 43% of the vote.

Last edited by Bijou Drains; 02-10-2020 at 07:38 PM.
  #1006  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:21 PM
sciurophobic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring
Posts: 1,720
Majority of Americans don't believe the impeachment trial exonerated Trump.

Quote:
Quinnipiac Poll 2/10/20

POST-IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

American voters are evenly split, 49 - 49 percent, on the Senate's decision to acquit President Trump of both articles of impeachment. Republicans approve 95 - 4 percent, independents approve 53 - 45 percent, and Democrats disapprove 90 - 8 percent.

Despite the acquittal, voters say 55 - 40 percent that the Senate voting to acquit President Trump does not clear him of any wrongdoing in the Ukraine matter. Republicans say 81 - 12 percent that the acquittal clears the president of wrongdoing, while Democrats 91 - 6 percent and independents 54 - 40 percent say it does not. By 51 - 46 percent, voters say the charges against President Trump were serious enough for him to be impeached and put on trial.

Voters say 59 - 35 percent that the Senate impeachment trial was conducted unfairly.
  #1007  
Old 02-11-2020, 02:20 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,451
But what does "unfairly" mean? Il Douche quite agrees with that word, he thinks it was "unfair".
  #1008  
Old 02-11-2020, 02:27 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,253
He thinks it was unfair to conduct at all, not that it was conducted unfairly.
  #1009  
Old 02-11-2020, 02:42 PM
dasmoocher is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
But what does "unfairly" mean? Il Douche quite agrees with that word, he thinks it was "unfair".
I think for Trump, "unfair" means anything not sufficiently obsequious enough towards him.
  #1010  
Old 02-11-2020, 03:34 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,451
Point being, a reasonable person might regard it as unfair, in that witnesses were not called, so on and so forth. A bug-eyed batshit Trumpivik might regard is as unfair because. So, both opinions fall under that response, for very different reasons. Like, reasons.
  #1011  
Old 02-11-2020, 08:15 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
a) Congress is not the Supreme Court, so I wouldn't say that it's an answer to the question. I agree that, in the case of a Congressional trial, they are not well suited to also trying a criminal case, if a criminal trial is also necessary. It would make sense to split off any legal questions to elsewhere. That does not work for the Supreme Court, though.
The way I see it, Mr. Hamilton was explaining why we can't have the Supreme Court decide whether the President should be convicted and removed. In the course of doing so, he writes that it would be pointless to have two trials in the same court because "the objects of prosecution would, in a great measure, be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial."

The implication is that having two trials is intended to provide double the security, to the President. Having both trials before the same court removes that security, thus defeating the purpose of having two trials. This is a direct answer to your question, "[t]hen why two trials? And particularly, why two trials even when run by a genuine court of law?"

Whether or not the Senate or the Supreme Court is better suited for criminal trials is besides the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
b) More importantly, he's giving a reason to not hold a criminal trial in Congress, which again implies that the trial which is being held is not criminal, since he accepts that it can be held it Congress.
No, I don't see that. Where did Mr. Hamilton give a reason to not hold a criminal trial in Congress? Are you and I using different definitions of "criminal trial"?

In my view, the Senate gets to try the President for high crimes and misdemeanors. By definition, a trial of crimes and misdemeanors is a criminal trial. True, the President doesn't have a right to be tried by jury after being impeached. But this exception is literally written into the Constitution, "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury[...]"

So, going by my own thoughts, you would have to show me where Mr. Hamilton argues that the Senate should not hold trials for high crimes and misdemeanors. Then I would agree that he gave a reason to not hold a criminal trial in Congress.

Obviously, Federalist No. 65 contains no passage that can satisfy your claim under my definitions. So, could you elaborate exactly what you mean when you write "criminal trial"? As it stands, your argument makes no sense to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
c) He also still gives no indication that there's any world in which a single trial would be sufficient, so it is not an answer to the question. If the idea is that the act being prosecuted must be criminal, the standards of the trial most conform to criminal standards, etc. then there is no reason to hold two trials. There is no value when it would be the same question asked under the same standards and procedures.
You asked why we have two trials, and now you are saying you won't accept an answer unless it admits that one trial would be sufficient. You are begging the question.

The accused wouldn't have the double security of two trials if there was only one trial, therefore we have two. The double security is the value added.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
The ramifications of a double trial in different locations is answered by Hamilton. He does not answer why there are TWO trials.
I don't know how much clearer I can make this. There are two trials to provide the accused with double protection. It says so, right there in Federalist 65,
"Those who know anything of human nature, will not hesitate to answer these questions in the affirmative; and will be at no loss to perceive, that by making the same persons judges in both cases, those who might happen to be the objects of prosecution would, in a great measure, be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial."
I do not mean to imply that you know nothing of human nature, given my age there is a good chance that you know much more about human nature than I do. Rather I think you are asking the wrong question.

Look, I have a pretty good guess on what you're really after. Why do we need the double security of two criminal trials? The answer is that even the Senate "will, at certain seasons," be subject to the "demon of faction". Why not just have one criminal trial before the Supreme Court? Because 1) the Supreme Court can't be trusted with such a power, and 2) the Supreme Court doesn't have the necessary credibility. It's all right there in Federalist 65.

~Max
  #1012  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:09 PM
FavreCo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 59
Get on board the Trump train or continue to be a loser.
  #1013  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:39 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by FavreCo View Post
Get on board the Trump train or continue to be a loser.
Gettin’ crazy with the cheez whiz!
I just read nearly all your 59 posts over the last few years. That’s four minutes of my life I’ll never get back.

Last edited by JKellyMap; 02-11-2020 at 09:40 PM.
  #1014  
Old 02-11-2020, 10:44 PM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 9,046
Can we put a stake through this thread, if only so I don't have to watch Max S spam the hell out of it? Trial's over.
  #1015  
Old 02-11-2020, 11:48 PM
Elendil's Heir is online now
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 88,204
PM sent to mods for possible closure of the thread.
  #1016  
Old 02-12-2020, 12:00 AM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,396
Yeah. Concur.

Move on, people. There are votes happening.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017