late wrote:One of the first things you do in a trial is Disclosure.
That would be a preliminary hearing before the trial. Generally, the first thing is an arraignment. You present the defendant with the nature and cause of the charges. The defendant can respond by plea, demurrer or motion to dismiss.
late wrote:Trump has been obstructing justice by keeping the most important witnesses and evidence hidden.
Invoking a privilege is not obstruction of justice any more than exercising a right to remain silent.
late wrote:It gets worse.
It's not worse.
late wrote:Dems get 2 days. That's it. Which is beyond inadequate.
The Democrats can present all the testimony they collected in the House that they think is relevant. The Democrats claimed that the evidence was incontrovertible and the facts uncontested. They claimed the case was a slam dunk. Now, suddenly they think they don't have enough evidence.
late wrote:The Repukes will tie up the trial with procedural motions as long as they can on the first day.
That's usually what happens early in a trial.
late wrote:Dems will have to do it without evidence or witnesses.
Either they had the evidence or they didn't. If they didn't have the evidence, impeachment was an abuse of power. They called numerous witnesses in the house. Transcripts of that testimony can be entered into the Senate record.
late wrote:You can't have a trial without evidence and witnesses.
Sure you can. Most cases are disposed before trial. Demurrers, motions to dismiss, settling out of court in civil cases, and so forth are common occurrences. At any rate, if Democrats voted for impeachment on evidence they did not have in their possession, that is their problem.
redcarpet wrote:Schiff uses Trump's words against him at impeachment trial very effective.
Trump's attorneys are doing the same thing. Either they had all this incontrovertible evidence, or they didn't. They claimed that the facts spoke for themselves. They claimed the facts were uncontested. Where's the slamdunk case? Why the sudden need for even more witnesses? Could it be that they didn't have a case? It certainly seems that way.
redcarpet wrote:The GOP can drag its feet all it wants but the evidence is overwhelming on this crime of bribery, as well as everything else.
Well if there is overwhelming evidence of bribery, why wasn't he impeached for bribery? The evidence is meaningless if it doesn't meet the offense charged--which isn't defined as a crime anywhere in the United States Code or Code of Federal Regulations.
Politics_Observer wrote:I believe we have a dictatorship now and our republic is already gone. I could be wrong, but it sure looks that way.
He's running for re-election. Dictators generally don't submit to popular will.
Politics_Observer wrote:I also don't think Trump will willingly step down if he loses the upcoming election or if he wins a second term, he won't willingly step down after his second term is over.
Of course he will. He's in his seventies. After another four years of this, he'll be pretty tired of it.
Politics_Observer wrote:This is not a fair, even handed trial in any sense of the word.
It's political, and it wasn't bi-partisan. So it wasn't going to go anywhere and everybody knew this going in.
Politics_Observer wrote:Trump is clearly guilty of crimes but the republicans aren't going to convict him despite overwhelming evidence he is guilty because Trump is one of them: wealthy rich white people and wealthy rich white people protect their own and give two shits about anybody else or the country.
The articles of impeachment do not specify any crimes at all. Abuse of power and obstruction of congress aren't defined crimes. They haven't even established as a matter of law what the elements of such an offense would be. Basically, the Democrats in congress are playing you people for fools. They knew this whole thing was never going to go anywhere. Basically, all they are doing is undermining Warren and Sanders and clearing the path for Biden. The whole show accomplishes nothing else.