Trump supporters, please explain something to me..

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have read from Senators that the House can choose yea or nay to impeach.

The Senate can choose yea or nay to accept the trial. The chair (chief justice) will decide if this is constitutional, it has never been done but can be done.

If McConnell has the votes to stop the trial for not having enough evidence and the chair can find no legality in the Constitution to stop it, it is over.

The Constitution is very open about impeachment trials, just in cast it's a sham lacking evidence (such as this) to remove a sitting president.

There must be strong evidence for this to happen. The Dems don't have it.
I think it would be a very unwise thing to try to pull off when more people want Trump removed from office than don't, at least according to the polls.
A trial with all the witnesses that have actual information such as Guiliani, Pompeo, Bolton, etc., who are all Trump people, could put this investigation to bed.
Why doesn't Trump want to do that? I've been trying to come up with more reasons why he might night. Is it because he's using it on the campaign trail to garner sympathy?
 
Upvote 0

Charlie24

Newbie
Oct 17, 2014
2,306
963
✟103,731.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
I think it would be a very unwise thing to try to pull off when more people want Trump removed from office than don't, at least according to the polls.
A trial with all the witnesses that have actual information such as Guiliani, Pompeo, Bolton, etc., who are all Trump people, could put this investigation to bed.
Why doesn't Trump want to do that? I've been trying to come up with more reasons why he might night. Is it because he's using it on the campaign trail to garner sympathy?

This is my take, as I have said before I may be wrong.

Trump doesn't care what his haters think, he cares about his legacy with an acquittal in his resume.

I don't think (could be wrong) there will be an acquittal if McConnell is successful in what I have said.

This is what I have thought it's about all along. But let me say again, I may be wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,029
3,750
✟287,817.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
This isn't about fairness. Neither side cares about being fair or conducting impeachment hearings in a bipartisan manner. That's the exact problem. It's a partisan affair where each side is going to complain about the other and do things in a way which is beneficial to their own.

If the Democrat's aren't being fair in the house, why does Trump have to respect them and the people they want to talk to?
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This is my take, as I have said before I may be wrong.

Trump doesn't care what his haters think, he cares about his legacy with an acquittal in his resume.

I don't think (could be wrong) there will be an acquittal if McConnell is successful in what I have said.

This is what I have thought it's about all along. But let me say again, I may be wrong.
I would think he would want an acquittal to answer to the impeachment charges, they don't go away no matter what McConnell does. It will always be on his legacy that he was impeached by the House.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This isn't about fairness. Neither side cares about being fair or conducting impeachment hearings in a bipartisan manner. That's the exact problem. It's a partisan affair where each side is going to complain about the other and do things in a way which is beneficial to their own.

If the Democrat's aren't being fair in the house, why does Trump have to respect them and the people they want to talk to?
How were the Dems. not fair, they followed the rules that were written by the Republicans for the Clinton Benghazi investigation, etc.

Correction - the rules written and followed by the Republicans in every oversight investigation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Charlie24

Newbie
Oct 17, 2014
2,306
963
✟103,731.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
I would think he would want an acquittal to answer to the impeachment charges, they don't go away no matter what McConnell does. It will always be on his legacy that he was impeached by the House.

Yes, he will always carry the impeachment. But he will not carry an acquittal (if I am correct) that says maybe he was guilty. It will be obvious it was a sham from the House, because the Senate didn't even try it.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, he will always carry the impeachment. But he will not carry an acquittal (if I am correct) that says maybe he was guilty. It will be obvious it was a sham from the House, because the Senate didn't even try it.
Sorry, but for the Senate not to call the central witnesses will clearly be a 'sham trial' (if that happens, if Bolton, McGahn and such don't testify to the Senate)....
 
Upvote 0

Charlie24

Newbie
Oct 17, 2014
2,306
963
✟103,731.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Sorry, but for the Senate not to call the central witnesses will clearly be a 'sham trial' (if that happens, if Bolton, McGahn and such don't testify to the Senate)....

Well, there's another side to the story that says the House didn't do their job in proving that there should be a trial.

Only the haters of Trump will refuse to acknowledge this.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,243
12,997
Seattle
✟895,343.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Well, there's another side to the story that says the House didn't do their job in proving that there should be a trial.

Only the haters of Trump will refuse to acknowledge this.


6b4eb4b0edf27122c2765aced39efce3429156ffd96ba4bba107490d12657384.jpg
 
  • Winner
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes, he will always carry the impeachment. But he will not carry an acquittal (if I am correct) that says maybe he was guilty. It will be obvious it was a sham from the House, because the Senate didn't even try it.
I don't agree because the Republicans are in control of the Senate and McConnell has already stated that he has met with Trump and he will do what Trump wants.
It would only look like a sham if Dems. in the Senate didn't even try.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

yougottabekidding

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2018
587
294
55
Oologah
✟28,478.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Sorry, but for the Senate not to call the central witnesses will clearly be a 'sham trial' (if that happens, if Bolton, McGahn and such don't testify to the Senate)....

Can you cite a precedent when the Senate called additional witnesses? I don't recall that happening in either the Nixon nor Clinton Impeachment.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,967
5,730
✟247,356.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Well, there's another side to the story that says the House didn't do their job in proving that there should be a trial.

Only the haters of Trump will refuse to acknowledge this.
The rules of impeachment are that the House have a vote, and if that vote is successful then the Senate must have a trial.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Innsmuthbride
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, there's another side to the story that says the House didn't do their job in proving that there should be a trial.

Only the haters of Trump will refuse to acknowledge this.
On the ultimate level this is all a tempest in a teapot. If trump disappeared tomorrow, or got reelected, or whatever -- it isn't really that important. We need to step back and keep our eyes on Christ, primarily. First and last.
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why exactly WOULDN’T you want the Democrats to be able to call administration officials in the impeachment trial?

The President says he did nothing wrong, and the witnesses the Democrats want to call are all Trump’s own men. Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, Guilliani these are all Trump administration figures and who continue to support him. Surely if he did nothing wrong, then they can all testify to exactly that and it’s over?

The trial will be in the senate with a Republican majority, the Democratic senators will have no power to play games with the rules or anything. All they’re asking for is for the people who were involved to tell the truth under oath.

So please explain to me, why don’t you want these people to clear your Presidents name? Do you really not want to hear what they have to say, and put this whole thing to bed once and for all?

For a follow up question, are you not also scared that next time there’s a Democrat in power this precedent will also be used in reverse?


The reason I have a problem with it is because it's not the Senate's job to do what the House should have done to begin with. If they wanted these particular witnesses to testify, then they should have allowed the Courts to enforce any of these subpoenas. But they didn't want to go that route though. It might take too long, and that this matter of removing Trump from office was urgent. Which then got contradicted by the fact of Pelosi delaying sending the articles to the Senate.

So in my mind, they put plan B into effect, which involves what Schumer has been doing, by making it look like a cover up on the Senate Republicans part, if they don't succumb to Pelosi's demands.

So in my view, I don't have problems with witnesses at the trial, but at the same time, by allowing the witnesses the House Dems want, this would indicate, not only did they get away with their dirty tricks in the House hearings, they continue to get away with their dirty tricks in the Senate hearings as well.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Can you cite a precedent when the Senate called additional witnesses? I don't recall that happening in either the Nixon nor Clinton Impeachment.
Edited for more clarity and details.
In previous impeachments, we didn't see the President contravening the Constitution with a wholesale order to try to block all witnesses and documents from Congress. Not until now.

Many testified anyway, in spite of the order:
The differences between Trump's impeachment and Clinton's

But, as I was posting just above, in the end, this will all not matter that much. Either we will have a good Senate trial, or none, or a bad one, and all of those scenarios will seem to matter, and will kind of matter in a very temporary way, but in the ultimate ways they will not matter. One could pray that Trump turn to Christ and repent though, for his own sake. (I'm suggesting the same prayer I made) One can pray for our Nation generally, that we turn more to God, and less to the world.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Charlie24

Newbie
Oct 17, 2014
2,306
963
✟103,731.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
The rules of impeachment are that the House have a vote, and if that vote is successful then the Senate must have a trial.

Nope, I thought so too! But I found a couple of months ago that is not true.

The Constitution says that "the Senate has sole power to conduct impeachment trials."

This is why Polosi held the articles demanding certain things that would take place in the trial.

She has no argument, it is solely in the hands of the Senate when she sends the articles and the Senate can try the trail anyway they see fit.

The House is completely out of it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DavidPT
Upvote 0

Charlie24

Newbie
Oct 17, 2014
2,306
963
✟103,731.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
On the ultimate level this is all a tempest in a teapot. If trump disappeared tomorrow, or got reelected, or whatever -- it isn't really that important. We need to step back and keep our eyes on Christ, primarily. First and last.

Now that I agree with and will support!

Politics must not come before Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

yougottabekidding

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2018
587
294
55
Oologah
✟28,478.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
In previous impeachments, the President didn't dare to contravene the Constitution and try to block witnesses and documents from Congress. Not until now.

Not accurate:

The Clinton administration invoked executive privilege on fourteen occasions. In 1998, President Bill Clinton became the first president since Nixon to assert executive privilege and lose in court, when a federal judge ruled that Clinton aides could be called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal.​

In BOTH cases, it was the HOUSE that took the issue to court and got the testimonies they needed - They did NOT turn it over to the Senate until it was complete. They did not rush it through and it was a bi partisan vote to impeach
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Can you cite a precedent when the Senate called additional witnesses? I don't recall that happening in either the Nixon nor Clinton Impeachment.
Nixon resigned before he was impeached so there weren't any hearings or a trial. Before Nixon resigned he tried to keep from turning over audiotapes claiming executive privilege but the SCOTUS ruled that he had to turn them over to the investigators.

There were 41 witnesses called at Andrew Johnson's trial, 25 by the prosecution and 16 by the defense. There were 3 at Bill Clinton's, they were deposed by the House managers and videotaped, then portions of the videos determined to be relevant by Senators were played for the whole Senate.
Ken Starr, the Special Prosecutor, questioned all the witnesses he wanted to including President Clinton.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

yougottabekidding

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2018
587
294
55
Oologah
✟28,478.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Before Nixon resigned he tried to keep from turning over audiotapes claiming executive privilege but the SCOTUS ruled that he had to turn them over to the investigators.

That is because the HOUSE let it go through the courts - like they are supposed to.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: DavidPT
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.