Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Fugus]

And again, back to executive privilege, which hasn't actually been used yet. They actually have to site where they are applying it and which sections. They can apply it to EVERYTHING. Executive Privilege isn't blanket immunity.

- - - Updated - - -

Murkowski and Alexander are looking for an out to not call witnesses. This was their question.

They are trying to sell out their jobs and their nation at every chance. And they are lying though their teeth too.

The defense tried to say that the contents of the articles now, even if 100% true isn't impeachable as part of that. They are sad.

[Shadowferal]

I would be surprised at this point if Murkowski doesn't vote for witness testimony. Her question regarding Bolton all but said she would.
And I have to wonder if Rand Paul isn't going to piss off Roberts with his insistence on the whistleblower thing.

[beanman12345]

I would be surprised at this point if Murkowski doesn't vote for witness testimony. Her question regarding Bolton all but said she would.
And I have to wonder if Rand Paul isn't going to piss off Roberts with his insistence on the whistleblower thing.

Murkowsky isn't gonna be a yes on witnesses unless Alexander is. it'll be both or neither.

[Shadowferal]

Alexander is retiring...so he has little to lose.

[beanman12345]

Alexander just basically said, trump is guilty, don't need to hear anything else. so no witnesses.

[Breccia]

In an...interesting move, Trump's lawyers tried to tell a federal judge that Congress can't go to court to enforce subpoenas. They could only use their legislative powers, which of course Trump would just veto with no sense of irony.

[Shadowferal]

Maine Sen. Susan Collins announced after Thursday’s session that she will vote in favor of witnesses and Utah Sen. Mitt Romney is expected to follow suit.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the last who was seen huddling with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on several occasions Thursday, said in a statement after the proceeding that she had to “reflect on what I have heard, re-read my notes and decide whether I need to hear more.”

[omerome]

Cowards...all of those Republican Senators. Cowards.

Even Susan Collins. You don't get to say you did the right thing when the pressure is off.

[Yoshingo]

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the last who was seen huddling with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on several occasions Thursday, said in a statement after the proceeding that she had to “reflect on what I have heard, re-read my notes and decide whether I need to hear more.”

How many times have we heard her say this.

She's going to vote no.

[beanman12345]

Cowards...all of those Republican Senators. Cowards.

Even Susan Collins. You don't get to say you did the right thing when the pressure is off.

She voted to table the witnesses, that's enough. As you said, cowards. Scared of baby hands trump.

[Blur4stuff]

I don't see how to interpret this any other way than Republicans have abandoned democracy in favor of a dictatorship.

Although, I have suspect they would suddenly change their opinions with a democratic president.

[Benggaul]

Welp, I guess now we'll be seeing more leaked passages from Bolton's book.

Still, there's the total shitshow State of the Union address to look forward to. I wonder how many times he'll sniffle and attempt to say "EXONERATED" before the sandman takes him off the stage.

- - - Updated - - -

Although, I have suspect they would suddenly change their opinions with a democratic president.

They absolutely will and will be up to everyone to remind them of this period every day for the rest of their miserable lives.

[draynay]

They absolutely will and will be up to everyone to remind them of this period every day for the rest of their miserable lives.

They'll just leave the room whenever an old recording of them is played.

[Benggaul]

They'll just leave the room whenever an old recording of them is played.

Cool. Stand outside their houses and keep shouting about how they've failed their country then. Either way, their lives aren't going to be peaceful.

[Zaktar]

Out of curiousity, what would it look like if the Senate voted to convict tomorrow? Is it effective immediately? Would President Pence have to give the state of the union on Tuesday?

Obviously we have never removed a President before, what are the rules for that? Who determines the rules?

Not sure anyone knows since it is unprecedented. I was curious too so I tried a basic web search to see what I could find, and didn't come up with much. I'm pretty ignorant on this stuff so take my opinion with a major grain of salt, only responding because of curiosity and, unless I missed a post, no one else really replied. The constitution doesn't exactly offer a lot of guidance on the details, though of course that's by design.

I think these are the relevant passages

Article 1 Section 3

6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article 2 Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

To me the wording suggests that the instant the President is both impeached and convicted, he is removed from office. Meaning that the instant the conviction is confirmed, Trump would no longer be President (in the fantasy world where this was possible). From that point, the Chief Justice would presumably summon the VP to be sworn in as President, and once they do so, we have our new leader. In theory anyway, in practice this could be a pretty ugly process.

[mvaliz]

Out of curiousity, what would it look like if the Senate voted to convict tomorrow?

Like Satan wearing a winter coat due to how Hell froze over.

My optimism has completely opted out at this point. =/

[DarkTZeratul]

To me the wording suggests that the instant the President is both impeached and convicted, he is removed from office. Meaning that the instant the conviction is confirmed, Trump would no longer be President (in the fantasy world where this was possible). From that point, the Chief Justice would presumably summon the VP to be sworn in as President, and once they do so, we have our new leader.

That sounds most likely to me.

[Dontrike]

That's what "fake news" basically means.

No. I don't care how Trump and his zealots use it, that's not what it means. They wish it meant anything they don't like, but it only makes them look even dumber.

[Thekri]

To me the wording suggests that the instant the President is both impeached and convicted, he is removed from office. Meaning that the instant the conviction is confirmed, Trump would no longer be President (in the fantasy world where this was possible). From that point, the Chief Justice would presumably summon the VP to be sworn in as President, and once they do so, we have our new leader. In theory anyway, in practice this could be a pretty ugly process.

Apparently you are correct, I did some googling as well, and it does seem to be immediate.

While Presidents haven't been removed, Judges have, and they seem to stop being a judge the instant a charge passes the Senate. Example being Thomas Porteous in 2010.

And yes I know Trump isn't getting removed, I was just curious.

[lockybalboa]

Bernie is the only one capable of stopping Trump but stupid democrats and CNN are holding him back