- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
If this goes to the Senate, is it a trial?
Posted on 11/21/19 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 11/21/19 at 4:05 pm
Will there be judicial procedure rules?
I know that the House skirted these rules by calling it an "Inquiry", and allowed hearsay, leading the witness and recording unsubstantiated accusations as a "matter of record"...
Will it be like a regular trial?
I know that the House skirted these rules by calling it an "Inquiry", and allowed hearsay, leading the witness and recording unsubstantiated accusations as a "matter of record"...
Will it be like a regular trial?
8
Posted on 11/21/19 at 4:08 pm to nuwaydawg
Chief Justice John Roberts will be the Judge and the Senators will be the jury.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 4:09 pm to nuwaydawg
I don’t think this even counted as the house impeachment, Nadler has to run that.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 4:10 pm to nuwaydawg
If it's like a real trial, the Dems have no witnesses. All we just heard is hearsay and supposition. A real judge would not allow their testimony.
Without Schiff to protect them, they have no witnesses and no case. A true cross examination. even if one or two of them were allowed, will tear them apart.
Can they force Schiff to testify if it goes to the Senate? If they can, he's a dead man. He'll have to either take the Fifth or perjure himself.Because anything they ask him, the GOP already knows the answer.
Without Schiff to protect them, they have no witnesses and no case. A true cross examination. even if one or two of them were allowed, will tear them apart.
Can they force Schiff to testify if it goes to the Senate? If they can, he's a dead man. He'll have to either take the Fifth or perjure himself.Because anything they ask him, the GOP already knows the answer.
This post was edited on 11/21/19 at 4:11 pm
Posted on 11/21/19 at 4:14 pm to antibarner
quote:
A true cross examination
If it come to this (and I think this is such a shite show it will never leave the House), but if it does, and it’s an actual trial, please let the Republicans use an actual attorney. One who tries cases; big cases; professionally. Any attorney besides Castor Oil. He is so boring.
Because if there is a trial in the Senate, people will watch more than the random arse scripted opening statements.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 4:22 pm to Wednesday
President's attorneys defend the President. I can't wait for discovery and to see the witnesses they call.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 4:22 pm to Wednesday
Trump gets to call anyone, too. Hillary, Obama, Schiff, the WB. He has cart Blanche defense opportunities
Posted on 11/21/19 at 5:10 pm to nuwaydawg
This Impeachment crap won't matter; it's negative PR designed to swing the dupes and useful idiots.
Horrowitz kicks of the real thing. Real CRIMINALITY with High Crimes. Incoming.
Horrowitz kicks of the real thing. Real CRIMINALITY with High Crimes. Incoming.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 5:16 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Any attorney besides Castor Oil. He is so boring.
Him being boring to you is irrelevant. He wasn't there for your, or my, entertainment.
What he was there for, he did very, very well.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 5:58 pm to Centinel
This entire thing was a publicity stunt. There’s no appeal. There are no rules. There’s no need to “make a record.” The whole thing was designed to be a very long campaign commercial for the Democrats.
The Democrats think they won because one of trumps hires said the words quid pro quo. It doesn’t matter what was the quid, what was the pro, and what was the quo; or that no actual exchange occurred.
Yes. If this were a real trial and the jury found the POTUS guilty of Muh Quid Pro Quo (which is nothing other than a legal term for the “price you pay” and doesn’t mean the quid pro quo is illegal. You quid pro quo every time you buy a pack of gum.), Castor Oil could appeal and introduce all his boring questions with the Ums and weird stammering edited out and probably get a reversal. But it doesn’t matter. Nobody is running what he says on the news when everyone watches the summary at the end of the day.
There’s no definition of impeachable offense.
There’s no legal standard aside from “we think orange man bad.”
If you’re so boring that nobody can stand watching you, you lose.
The Democrats think they won because one of trumps hires said the words quid pro quo. It doesn’t matter what was the quid, what was the pro, and what was the quo; or that no actual exchange occurred.
Yes. If this were a real trial and the jury found the POTUS guilty of Muh Quid Pro Quo (which is nothing other than a legal term for the “price you pay” and doesn’t mean the quid pro quo is illegal. You quid pro quo every time you buy a pack of gum.), Castor Oil could appeal and introduce all his boring questions with the Ums and weird stammering edited out and probably get a reversal. But it doesn’t matter. Nobody is running what he says on the news when everyone watches the summary at the end of the day.
There’s no definition of impeachable offense.
There’s no legal standard aside from “we think orange man bad.”
If you’re so boring that nobody can stand watching you, you lose.
This post was edited on 11/21/19 at 6:01 pm
Posted on 11/21/19 at 6:23 pm to Whens lunch
I’m going to get downvoted for this, but I believe Roberts has the final say on who gets to testify
Posted on 11/21/19 at 6:33 pm to nuwaydawg
It will be the dems worst nightmare.
I understand that Lindsey Graham wants The Federal Rules of Evidence to apply. There will be no hearsay and no "I believe" or "I feel" evidence. The Rs will get to call their own witnesses.
What I am not sure about is whether the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt evidence.
I understand that Lindsey Graham wants The Federal Rules of Evidence to apply. There will be no hearsay and no "I believe" or "I feel" evidence. The Rs will get to call their own witnesses.
What I am not sure about is whether the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt evidence.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 6:37 pm to nuwaydawg
If it is sent to the senate ( highly doubtful), the GOP will invite all the witnesses Schiff wouldn’t invite, and destroy all that has happened the last two weeks.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 6:39 pm to IonaTiger
You would think the gravity of impeaching a president would be beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t know for sure. That is what I believe it should be is all.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 6:43 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
That's what I would think as it is akin to a criminal proceeding. I did a google search and I read that the deliberating body decides the burden of proof. I would have thought that would have been codified.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 6:43 pm to nuwaydawg
This will never go to the Senate.
In this clip, “paper” = “media”
In this clip, “paper” = “media”
Posted on 11/21/19 at 6:44 pm to Ag Zwin
I strenuously object!
Posted on 11/21/19 at 7:16 pm to nuwaydawg
quote:
Will it be like a regular trial?
No.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News