GOP Senator Puts Nancy Pelosi on Notice; No Articles by Monday, He Will Introduce Measure to Dismiss

Really? My dad was one, he told a lot of stories, but he never told me about all the times the defense attorneys got a list of the jury pool and conspired with those named on the list to nullify the verdict before the trial started. Never mentioned one such occasion.

 

They didn't conspire with the defense attorney, or got a list. But if you sat on trial as a juror, what does "having an open mind", mean? If it meant having an open mind simply to the prosecution's story, then well we'd have very fast and speedy trials indeed. But no, it means having an open mind towards both sides, with a juror needing a prosecution to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt.

All a defense has to do, is establish doubt. Hence, yes the burden is on the prosecution. McConnell just openly stated that burden.

 

No, sir that is not what he did. Lets not be disingenuous here. He has openly stated how he intends to vote, that he is coordinating on strategy with the White House, that he will run things the way the white house wants, and that he intends to do whatever he can to ensure a quick acquittal. How's about you comparing those acts with what prospective empaneled jurors do 'all the time' before the trial starts.

 

Just like Schumer and the left did with Clinton. Sorry pal that's the game and why you have to have an actual crime to get a President removed. Heck the Republicans had actual felonies that Starr reported Clinton committed and they were still so weak he couldn't get removed. The founders were brilliant in structuring impeachment so it couldn't be used like the dems are using it today.

 

How is that any different from the Democratic House? Pelosi coordinated strategy with Schiff/Nadler, they'd done so to get the articles they wanted. If the Democratic case is strong enough, it might change McConnell's mind. Even if it doesn't change his mind, it might change the mind of other Republicans, to win a 2/3rds majority for his removal.

 

McConnell is working in coordination with the White House. He said that. There is a very big difference between 'innocent until proven guilty' and a jurist stating "I'm not an impartial juror".

 

Good grief go study a little history, google dems work with Clinton on impeachment trial. That's the game, this is like a repeat with the sides switching. Then google what happened after Clinton was impeached in the House and Senate. The dems have gone brain dead all of a sudden, it quiet funny.

 

As McConnell pointed out: Neither is Schumer, Warren, Sanders or Harris. He was just brazen enough to be out in the open about it.
Here's the reality of the situation: Nothing is stopping Democrats from making their arguments(both orally and through the articles). Nothing even forebore any witnesses, I bet there would be a compromise.

But we know for a FACT that so long as the articles are withheld, the 'trial' is at an impasse. Meaning Democrats have deprived themselves of the opportunity to make their case.

 

So prosecutors should be impartial?

 

Neither Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler are not acting as jurors in a trial. They were filling a very different role. Their job is to build a case and advocate, not render a fair impartial verdict. They are not supposed to be any more impartial than Trump's lawyers are supposed to be impartial. Its Roberts, the presiding judge, and the jurors who are.

 

The difference here is that the House put out 100 hours of testimony with their choice of top "witnesses" against Trump. There is plenty of testimony for Senators, including McConnell, to decide how they want to vote. The testimony was finished in the House (or should have been if they hadn't hurried).

In an ordinary trial, the jury is picked first and then evidence is presented.

 

You have no impartial jurors or senators in this case. We all know at least 45 of the Democratic senators decided to vote guilty way before the official, even unofficial impeachment hearings began in the house. Heck, we knew they would vote guilty from the day after the election in November 2016. The two up in the air in my mind, Manchin and Jones. Of course on the other side, the GOP senators, we all know 48-49 will vote not guilty or NAY, their minds also made up since the day after the election. Collins, Murkowski are two who may Vote AYE, there may be a couple of others. I'd say before the trial begins we have 95 senators already decided. Before any evidence, before any witnesses, just a simple party line vote for the most part.

Yes, this whole show has been rigged from the beginning to include the phony impeachment hearings in the house. Democrats rig the house, Republicans rig the senate. Whoopie Do, what else is new?

What bugs me about the upcoming senate trial is the Democrats think it is perfectly okay, right, to have their senators minds already made up, to be as partial and partisan as Hades, but think the Republicans senators should be impartial, non-partisan and are wrong if they have this show prejudged. You can't expect a politician, a party member to leave his partisanship at the door.

Personally, I think it is alright if one side goes into the trial with their prejudged guilty verdict if the other side goes into the trial with their prejudged not guilty verdict. It's only fair, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Only the Democrats don't see it this way.

 

matters naught, as we've been repetatively told by the left, impeachment is not like our legal system... 'cept when things start going bad for them, then just like that, it's compared to our legal system...

spinsters, the lot of you are...

btw, hawley is recognized as one of the nation’s leading constitutional lawyers...

he knows better...

 

From my standpoint, the prejudgment doesn't bother me. I think the founders counted on it to make impeachment difficult.
But I do think we owe the public and the jury all the evidence that is available. I think the public expects that as well.

 

Hmm. O.K..

 

And that happens in almost every trial in America, impeachment variety or otherwise... the difference is it's NOT wise to walk to a microphone and blatantly say it out loud.

Can you show me 1 Dem Senator who has said they will not be an impartial juror in this??

 

Elizabeth Warren.

 

Just think ... During the trial Adam Schiff can finally present all the evidence he has referred to proving once and for all that Donald Trump is indeed a Russian asset, a security threat, and an "existential threat to our country".

 

I think we're pretty much in the same boat. What should happen is let the two articles with whatever evidence the House dug up go to trial in the senate on just those two articles. If new evidence has been uncovered since the impeachment vote in the house. Since the articles haven't been transmitted yet, open new hearings in the house on the not covered evidence. I'd be fine with that.

But that isn't going to stop the pre-judgement on either side.

 

So courts shouldn't work with Defense attorneys? Common sense stuff here.

 

In the era of Trump, the facade of being impartial has be destroyed forever most likely. We all know outside of perhaps a handful of senators, there isn't one that is impartial out there. Never has been, never will be.

I agree it wasn't wise to make that walk to the microphone. It wasn't wise for McConnell after Obama was elected to state he was going to make him a one term president. Although we all know that is the goad of the opposing party from the get go. I think I prefer the facade, although the facade was completely dishonest. I do think the facade at least gave a few more trust in their government than the outright in your face honesty now being presented.

 

Nice "show"

 

I did answer it.
Impeachments do not involve a prosecutor, and an impeachment is a political process, not a legal proceeding.
Thus, your questions have no relevance.

 

Because Trump beat Hillary.

 

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.