whiterock said:
quash said:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
House impeaches by simple majority. Senate convicts by 2/3rds. Trump's impeached, then acquitted
The standard of evidence for a senator to convict is whatever the senator thinks it is. Senator can vote to convict for any reason or no reason at all.fo
no argument from me
Impeachment is not a legal process. It's a political process. Rules of due process do not apply, although the bodies involved will establish rules that are facsimiles of due process.
Literally, the people voting to impeach and convict are looking at how their vote will affect their re-election process.
I don't disagree. I'm wondering if senators believe it is helpful politically to acquit a guy whose been indicted once and may be indicted again. Do they want their political futures tied up with this guy?
Thanks for bringing the conversation back to my initial point: they could have avoided that dilemma entirely by not impeaching him in the first place and letting the courts handle it........
If, and only if, the allegations are true then his conduct in office is despicable.
If not impeachment then what sanction would you impose? (Aside from "let the voters decide" which is fair.)
He has been under indictment (but inexplicably not prosecuted) for 7-8 years on one (specious) charge.
He is (recently) being investigated by the FBI on another.
Are you going to remove him from office just because he's accused?
(remember, he's been accused of some of the counts for a long, long time and been elected anyway.)
Or are you going to let the processes in motion play out and remove him if/when convicted?
Why the rush to impeach?
Could it be that the legal cases against him are so weak?
Would it not be more fair to him and the majority of people who voted for him to let the legal processes lay out FIRST?
"Nah, I don't like the SOB and most especially the nutjobs who support him, so I'll help the Democrats screw him over the first chance I get, voters be damned."
--Osodecentx
Nothing in the Texas construction or the rules of the legislature require that body to pause while other charges are resolved. There is no interplay
Neither is there a "rush". Resolving this between sessions is entirely appropriate.
Not sure why you asked me those questions: as I said if he is convicted he's out, if not he can stay as far as I'm concerned.
But you didn't answer the question I asked: what sanction would you impose if the evidence supports the charges?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat