Legal question

WilburHooksHands

Is there any other trial circumstance in which a vote is taken not to hear witnesses? What was the original intent behind that in the Senate?

UW_Doog_Bot

WilburHooksHands said:

Is there any other trial circumstance in which a vote is taken not to hear witnesses? What was the original intent behind that in the Senate?

To vote? Not usually as it's a judge but move to acquit is about as common as it gets.

LebamDawg

this might help - https://news.yahoo.com/pelosi-clinton-allowed-witnesses-to-come-forward-during-his-impeachment-trial-trump-has-done-the-opposite-180953795.html

Clinton's impeachment witnesses were not live - it was taped. and they were deposed previously. For Trump the house did not take the time to subpoena the witnesses they are requesting. I don't think there is any legal precedent to fall back on as they make the rules up as they go

WilburHooksHands

UW_Doog_Bot said:

WilburHooksHands said:

Is there any other trial circumstance in which a vote is taken not to hear witnesses? What was the original intent behind that in the Senate?

To vote? Not usually as it's a judge but move to acquit is about as common as it gets.

Sure but the jury acquits. The Senate is essentially the jury right? Is there any circumstance in which the jury votes not to hear witnesses?

WilburHooksHands

LebamDawg said:

this might help - https://news.yahoo.com/pelosi-clinton-allowed-witnesses-to-come-forward-during-his-impeachment-trial-trump-has-done-the-opposite-180953795.html

Clinton's impeachment witnesses were not live - it was taped. and they were deposed previously. For Trump the house did not take the time to subpoena the witnesses they are requesting. I don't think there is any legal precedent to fall back on as they make the rules up as they go

good shit here thx

RaceBannon

The jury expected the prosecution to have their case made when they presented it

They listened to the House managers and were not impressed

Nixon didn't even have to get to the Senate before he knew he was toast. The House nailed him

Clinton was not removed. I don't recall dire thoughts of the end of America but it was awhile ago

SFGbob

WilburHooksHands said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

WilburHooksHands said:

Is there any other trial circumstance in which a vote is taken not to hear witnesses? What was the original intent behind that in the Senate?

To vote? Not usually as it's a judge but move to acquit is about as common as it gets.

Sure but the jury acquits. The Senate is essentially the jury right? Is there any circumstance in which the jury votes not to hear witnesses?

Not to hear additional witnesses. They heard from plenty of witnesses. The House managers are just upset that the Senate didn't call the witnesses they declined to call.

SFGbob

WilburHooksHands said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

WilburHooksHands said:

Is there any other trial circumstance in which a vote is taken not to hear witnesses? What was the original intent behind that in the Senate?

To vote? Not usually as it's a judge but move to acquit is about as common as it gets.

Sure but the jury acquits. The Senate is essentially the jury right? Is there any circumstance in which the jury votes not to hear witnesses?

It's not the jury's job to help the prosecution make their case.

SFGbob

WilburHooksHands said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

WilburHooksHands said:

Is there any other trial circumstance in which a vote is taken not to hear witnesses? What was the original intent behind that in the Senate?

To vote? Not usually as it's a judge but move to acquit is about as common as it gets.

Sure but the jury acquits. The Senate is essentially the jury right? Is there any circumstance in which the jury votes not to hear witnesses?

Are there any circumstances where the prosecution asks the Jury to help them present their case?

RaceBannon

Wilbur is a smart kid so you can see that the strategy to have no case and then blame the refs can resonate some

Its about all the Democrats have. They get the media to amplify it daily

Sledog

It's an impeachment trial. It's not like a normal trial. The house presented it's case and the witnesses which they picked testified and the Senate said you ain't got Shit!

No impeachable offense.

pawz

WilburHooksHands said:

Is there any other trial circumstance in which a vote is taken not to hear witnesses? What was the original intent behind that in the Senate?

In a REAL trial you have a thing called discovery. All witnesses are 'discovered' and deposed - by both litigants - prior to a case going to trial.

In the context of a REAL trial, what is being asked for here would almost never happen.


Also, nothing is stopping the House from calling and deposing Bolton this minute. And that hasn't happened.

GrundleStiltzkin

And remember this is a political process first.

PurpleThrobber

GrundleStiltzkin said:

And remember this is a political process first.

A solemn one.

Baseman

RaceBannon said:

Wilbur is a smart kid so you can see that the strategy to have no case and then blame the refs can resonate some

Its about all the Democrats have. They get the media to amplify it daily

Right now, the media is all we have. Kind of like being a Mariners fan, really

YellowSnow

RaceBannon said:

The jury expected the prosecution to have their case made when they presented it

They listened to the House managers and were not impressed

Nixon didn't even have to get to the Senate before he knew he was toast. The House nailed him

Clinton was not removed. I don't recall dire thoughts of the end of America but it was awhile ago

This is the essence of the whole deal- i.e., partisan impeachment doesn’t work. Nixon resigned because both sides wanted him out.

I don’t like Trump. I’d rather the voters remove or not remove him from office.

Pitchfork51

The thing I find dumb is that people are like yeah now when a dem president is in office they'll impeach him

No. They realized it backfired. They won't do it.

LebamDawg

Pitchfork51 said:

The thing I find dumb is that people are like yeah now when a dem president is in office they'll impeach him

No. They realized it backfired. They won't do it.

you are giving our? congress folks a lot of credit here

I think it is going to be impeachment free-for-all for the next 6 presidents and then I will be dead and won't care

2001400ex

LebamDawg said:

Pitchfork51 said:

The thing I find dumb is that people are like yeah now when a dem president is in office they'll impeach him

No. They realized it backfired. They won't do it.

you are giving our? congress folks a lot of credit here

I think it is going to be impeachment free-for-all for the next 6 presidents and then I will be dead and won't care

I'm more worried this will give president's even more power than they have now.

Swaye

LebamDawg said:

Pitchfork51 said:

The thing I find dumb is that people are like yeah now when a dem president is in office they'll impeach him

No. They realized it backfired. They won't do it.

you are giving our? congress folks a lot of credit here

I think it is going to be impeachment free-for-all for the next 6 presidents and then I will be dead and won't care

Race will still be here lobbing bombs from the cheap seats. 20 Presidents from now I'd imagine.

GreenRiverGatorz

Pitchfork51 said:

The thing I find dumb is that people are like yeah now when a dem president is in office they'll impeach him

No. They realized it backfired. They won't do it.

Kind of depends on the November results. If Trump loses, impeachment is probably the new political tool until it does in fact backfire. If Trump wins, there'll be no shortage of people blaming the House for handing him back the office.

The rule of thumb was always you better be damn sure that you have both parties and a large majority of the country behind you if you're going to try to remove POTUS. Regardless of the allegations, I think it's pretty clear the dems never had enough political capital to make this a win in the short-term. Whether or not this third quarter hail merry ends up working is going to be quite the litmus test for future political strategy.