Legal question
Comments
-
To vote? Not usually as it's a judge but move to acquit is about as common as it gets.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?
-
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 -
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?UW_Doog_Bot said:
To vote? Not usually as it's a judge but move to acquit is about as common as it gets.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?
-
good shit here thxLebamDawg 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 -
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 -
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.WilburHooksHands said:
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?UW_Doog_Bot said:
To vote? Not usually as it's a judge but move to acquit is about as common as it gets.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?
-
It's not the jury's job to help the prosecution make their case.WilburHooksHands said:
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?UW_Doog_Bot said:
To vote? Not usually as it's a judge but move to acquit is about as common as it gets.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?
-
Are there any circumstances where the prosecution asks the Jury to help them present their case?WilburHooksHands said:
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?UW_Doog_Bot said:
To vote? Not usually as it's a judge but move to acquit is about as common as it gets.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?
-
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 -
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.
