Nothing in the Constitution limits the Senate to only that information that was presented, or available, at the time the House acted. That’s equivalent to say no one can submit a brief to the Supreme Court that was not considered at the Appellate Division. The Trump Administration does that all the time. You are presenting an awfully pathetic fig leaf for McConnell to limit the trial.
1 Like
Yes they can. And shouldn’t those rules as closely as possible mirror what are normal standards of jurisprudence? To do so would require that the Senate suspend the trial and send it back to the house to finish ripening their case. The case is not ready for a jury.
There is no reason for the Senate (jury) to go fishing for further prosecution witnesses, let the prosecution do its own work.
and nothing compels them to search for new prosecution witnesses either. This is not a case moving from one court to another, it is a case moving from the grand jury/prosecution to the court/jury. Neither the court nor the jury should be tasked with shoring up the prosecutions case.
For the last time this is not a trial in any court of this land or the judicial branch. How that is so hard to comprehend is not even amusing.
Lol @ all the TDSers trying to justify in their minds reasons for the Senate to complete the dims work for them… not realizing how transparent their motives are to the rest of us.
You mean that desire for the truth thing?
If you are going to use the grand jury, prosecution, court, jury analogy you have it wrong.
Grand jury is one thing. Then it move to prosecution in court before a jury. The prosecution doesn’t take place in the Grand Jury setting, it takes place in the presence of the court/jury.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
Maybe you should actually read the thread. The thread does not claim any such thing, It asks questions about what we should do based on our standards of jurisprudence. We all know what the house and Senate can do… anything they darn well please. I guess the real question is, should there be some check on the power of impeachment? Something that prevents frivolity? I suppose that is the Senate. Perhaps that’s best, perhaps we should think about something else that can remove some of the politics? Maybe the house and Senate are the best place (I believe they are), but perhaps we need to refine the process to ensure its less political?
I have read it, you are asking stupid questions and presenting hypotheticals because all of the sudden you dont like the way Trump is being handled. Cry me a river, better yet ask your representative to present an ammendment to the constitution which spells out what the senate and house can do regarding impeachment and removal. Until then its just crocodile tears.
I would object to this line of thought that the Senate is somehow being required to do the House’s work.
The Senate is not doing any work at all.
It is the House Managers and the Defense that is doing the work. The Senators are merely listening to evidence. If the House Managers or the Defense decide to call extra witnesses and evidence, then it will be the House Managers and Defense that do the extra work necessary to question and cross examine the witnesses and evidence.
The only “work” the Senate needs to do is render a judgement.
Exactly. Great post!
The Republican majority in the Senate has to decide its course: walking the tightrope between having to keep the immature and emotionally volatile President from acting out on the one hand, having to keep the base for whom Trump is the barrier between them and their fears fo what is America is becoming satisfied, and addressing a somewhat larger group that finds the President’s behavior worrisome or worse.
Impeachment is a political matter… not a legal one. If the concerns of the third group are ignored in favor of the first two, then half a dozen Republican Senators chances of reelection in 2020 drop and with that McConnell’s speakership and ability to pack the courts goes by the boards regardless of who is President.
Besides, why does calling the witnesses who are sure to exonerate Trump in any way shore up the Prosecution’s case. Their presence would satisfy the third group and since, as the second group fervently believes, the case against Trump is all nonsense, what could possibly go wrong form putting Giuliani, Bolton, Mulvaney etc. under oath. They would shore up the defense for sure.
And just for the record, in my mind, the question is not whether Trump did ****. He certainly did ****.
The question in my mind is whether that **** constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors” or “peccadilloes?”
High crimes and misdemeanors = convict.
Peccadilloes = acquit.
the prosecution prepares its case and then submits charges… not the other way around. is their case refined as trial proceeds? of course. but in very few cases are new evidence and witnesses allowed after trial begins. can they be? yes, and it mostly depends on when they learned it. if it was known all along and they simply decided not to use it…
In this case the witnesses and information they want is widely known, that they chose not to pursue that evidence/testimony with the remedy available to them is not the courts problem. There is no court in this land that would allow these witnesses in these circumstances.
Here is Trump’s* own new legal counsel on the impeachable act concerning abuse of power.
https://twitter.com/ForTheRuleOfLaw/status/1218251416642473985
*3rd Impeached President of the United States
My daughter is a JAG.
While true the prosecution prepares a case and then submits charges. There can be a lot of evidence development (if you want to use the grand jury analogy) between submitting a case to the grand jury and getting an indictment and then prosecutors presenting it in court. Especially development of forensic evidence, witness and expert testimony once the grand jury indicts from the basic case.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
you know what you can do with your rudeness i trust.
you don’t know me. you don’t know what i think, and you certainly don’t know my opinion or motivation on constitutional issues. if you are incapable of having a discussion about constitutional powers; what they are, and perhaps what some may think they should be. don’t come in the thread.
go pound sand
yes, and 99% is done pre trial and the defense has notification and time to prepare.
Blame Trump, he’s the one that ordered the obstruction.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
1 Like
