Trump Impeachment Trial 2.0

[aygart]

There is a very big difference between testifying "I felt incited by Donald Trump" and "Donald Trump incited me". One is a feeling, one is a fact.

How so? Either one is entirely dependent on the listener and not on the speaker.

[PlatinumGuy]

How so? Either one is entirely dependent on the listener and not on the speaker.

One is testifying on the feelings of the listener, which are irrelevant. The other is testifying on the actions of the speaker, which may be incorrect because of a bias, but can't be tossed out without thorough examination.

If your defense is that the dozens of sworn witnesses are lying, you can bring them in for questioning.

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/mepfuller/status/1359963326726471682

[aygart]

https://twitter.com/mepfuller/status/1359963326726471682

*obligatory reference to Russian Collusion*

[zh cohen]

Yes Secretary of War William Belknap was convicted by the Senate after he left office.

Wrong. He was acquitted specifically because many senators believed they did not have the authority to try him.

[zh cohen]

*obligatory reference to Russian Collusion*

And Biden's EO on transgender kids in school sports.

[sguitarist18]

You put words into my mouth. Someone feeling incited doesn't prove he was incited, but it is supporting evidence. If dozens of people say there was incitement, there likely was incitement.

There is a very big difference between testifying "I felt incited by Donald Trump" and "Donald Trump incited me". One is a feeling, one is a fact.

I disagree - they're both feelings, but one is phrased to sound like a fact.

Saying that someone incited you is, in effect, saying that you felt incited by them. It just tries to make the fault lie more on the other person.

[PlatinumGuy]

Wrong. He was acquitted specifically because many senators believed they did not have the authority to try him.

Then I stand corrected. They acquitted him but there is clear precedent for holding a trial after leaving office, and there is precedent for conviction from the British impeachment of Warren Hastings which inspired the constitution.

Even without precedent, the Senate has authority to determine the constitutionality of its own actions, and voted 56-44 that this trial is authorized. 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10565

Ultimately, the House approved (without objection) the resolution impeaching Secretary Belknap, establishing the House’s position that it may impeach an official who
does not currently hold office.
The impeachment then moved to the Senate for trial, where Secretary Belknap asserted through counsel that because he was now a private citizen and no longer an officer of the federal government, the Senate lacked the authority to bring him to trial. The House managers asserted otherwise, arguing that because Belknap was Secretary of War “at the time all the acts charged in said articles of impeachment were done
and committed ... the House of Representatives had power to prefer the articles of impeachment, and the Senate have full and the sole power to try the same.”
The Senate resolved to settle this threshold question of jurisdiction before proceeding further in the trial.
The chamber heard three days of arguments from both sides and deliberated in secret for more than two weeks, after which it determined by a vote of 37 to 29 that Secretary Belknap was “amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office before he was impeached.” The presiding officer then deemed the articles of impeachment against Belknap
“sufficient in law.” Much like the importance of the House vote to impeach Secretary Belknap, this vote established the Senate’s view that impeached former officials can be subject to trial in the Senate.

[aygart]

Then I stand corrected. They acquitted him but there is clear precedent for holding a trial after leaving office, and there is precedent for conviction from the British impeachment of Warren Hastings which inspired the constitution.

Even without precedent, the Senate has authority to determine the constitutionality of its own actions, and voted 56-44 that this trial is authorized. 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10565
 

Just try reading what you wrote placing your biases on the side. Just try at least.

[PlatinumGuy]

Just try reading what you wrote placing your biases on the side. Just try at least.

Stop posting criticism without articulating yourself

[YitzyS]

Then I stand corrected. They acquitted him but there is clear precedent for holding a trial after leaving office, and there is precedent for conviction from the British impeachment of Warren Hastings which inspired the constitution.

Even without precedent, the Senate has authority to determine the constitutionality of its own actions, and voted 56-44 that this trial is authorized. 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10565

I absolutely agree that using the term "unprecedented" for this is wrong. It may be unconstitutional, but it's not unprecedented.

On your other point, the Senate cannot make it constitutional with merely a majority vote. They can perhaps pass a law, but if it contradicts another law they would need a 2/3 majority and 3/4 of states to amend the constitution.

[PlatinumGuy]

On your other point, the Senate cannot make it constitutional with merely a majority vote. They can perhaps pass a law, but if it contradicts another law they would need a 2/3 majority and 3/4 of states to amend the constitution.

Does this contradict a law? If there is a question how to interpret the constitution a simple majority vote can decide it and the minority must respect the decision.

[YitzyS]

Does this contradict a law? If there is a question how to interpret the constitution a simple majority vote can decide it and the minority must respect the decision.

-1. Only the Supreme Court can interpret the law, IINM.

ETA: my quick Google search. My filter blocks me from clicking on the site, so I may be misinterpreting it.

[PlatinumGuy]

-1. Only the Supreme Court can interpret the law, IINM.

Au contraire, the constitution empowers Congress to decide about it’s own powers, and SCOTUS reaffirmed that recently. See the bipartisan congressional review I posted earlier.

SCOTUS gave itself the ultimate authority to decide a law isn’t valid 200 years ago, but that isn’t enshrined in the constitution and doesn’t mean Congress doesn’t have a say (although SCOTUS generally argues it can overrule their say)

[YitzyS]

Au contraire, the constitution empowers Congress to decide about it’s own powers, and SCOTUS reaffirmed that recently. See the bipartisan congressional review I posted earlier.

SCOTUS gave itself the ultimate authority to decide a law isn’t valid 200 years ago, but that isn’t enshrined in the constitution and doesn’t mean Congress doesn’t have a say (although SCOTUS generally argues it can overrule their say)

Interesting. I'll check that out.

[yitzgar]

-1. Only the Supreme Court can interpret the law, IINM.

ETA: my quick Google search. My filter blocks me from clicking on the site, so I may be misinterpreting it.

Judicial review isn't universally agreed upon

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/steventdennis/status/1360008560898428931

[BP16]

Who's stopping them?
He was literally talking about a far right group. There were no other protestors. It was White supremacist rally supporting civil war values of destroying the US.

Didn't seam he was talking about them when you see the entire clip!

[aygart]

Au contraire, the constitution empowers Congress to decide about it’s own powers, and SCOTUS reaffirmed that recently. See the bipartisan congressional review I posted earlier.

SCOTUS gave itself the ultimate authority to decide a law isn’t valid 200 years ago, but that isn’t enshrined in the constitution and doesn’t mean Congress doesn’t have a say (although SCOTUS generally argues it can overrule their say)

I think you are confusing powers with operating rules.

[aygart]

Judicial review isn't universally agreed upon

But has been the law of the land since Marbury v. Madison in 1803