Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: The Senate Trial

  1. Top | #1
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    11,689
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    12,396
    Rep Power
    45

    The Senate Trial

    Last time there was an impeachment trial in the Senate, I missed it. We had just moved from Boulder CO to this very rural outpost. I recall driving some distance to obtain sandwich making materials for our first meal, as we had no kitchen and only one half-bath was finished in the house. No sound system, just a little AM/FM radio, which brought in exactly one AM station. We happily settled in on the floor with the dogs to enjoy our meal, listening to the scratchy AM station. I remember thinking "that is an odd selection for a music station" when the Star Spangled banner began a couple of minutes before 6pm. Then ... silence. Took a few minutes to figure out what had happened.
    Needless to say, we were insulated from "da media", and it stayed that way for several months until we got one of those old 10 foot satellite dishes that could be pointed at various satellites to get different TV stations. So I missed the entire Senate trial of Bill Clinton's impeachment. Didn't bother me then, as I was sure beyond any reasonable doubt that a blowjob or "it depends what is is" wasn't going get him thrown out of office anyhow.
    Now, I am wishing I had seen it. Wondering what Justice Roberts' role will look like, and if there are different rules for compelling testimony, among other things. Does anyone here have a feel for those matters?
    Thanks.

  2. Top | #2
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    5,610
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    10,649
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    Last time there was an impeachment trial in the Senate, I missed it. We had just moved from Boulder CO to this very rural outpost. I recall driving some distance to obtain sandwich making materials for our first meal, as we had no kitchen and only one half-bath was finished in the house. No sound system, just a little AM/FM radio, which brought in exactly one AM station. We happily settled in on the floor with the dogs to enjoy our meal, listening to the scratchy AM station. I remember thinking "that is an odd selection for a music station" when the Star Spangled banner began a couple of minutes before 6pm. Then ... silence. Took a few minutes to figure out what had happened.
    Needless to say, we were insulated from "da media", and it stayed that way for several months until we got one of those old 10 foot satellite dishes that could be pointed at various satellites to get different TV stations. So I missed the entire Senate trial of Bill Clinton's impeachment. Didn't bother me then, as I was sure beyond any reasonable doubt that a blowjob or "it depends what is is" wasn't going get him thrown out of office anyhow.
    Now, I am wishing I had seen it. Wondering what Justice Roberts' role will look like, and if there are different rules for compelling testimony, among other things. Does anyone here have a feel for those matters?
    Thanks.
    Didn't Clinton's impeachment come down to one vote? I thought it was very close, as was Andrew Johnson's.

    I'd like to break with tradition and see Dotard in Chief get the sack. It could actually happen, particularly with Roberts presiding.

  3. Top | #3
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    11,689
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    12,396
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    It could actually happen, particularly with Roberts presiding.
    What power does he wield in that proceeding? Can he compel witnesses to appear, etc, or is he just a procedural referee?

    The Clinton vote wasn't even close:

    Wiki:
    On February 12, Clinton was acquitted on both counts as neither received the necessary two-thirds majority vote of the senators present for conviction and removal from office – in this instance 67. On Article One, 45 senators voted to convict while 55 voted for acquittal. On Article Two, 50 senators voted to convict while 50 voted for acquittal.[3] Consequently, Clinton remained in office for the balance of his second term.

  4. Top | #4
    Veteran Member funinspace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,284
    Archived
    10,245
    Total Posts
    13,529
    Rep Power
    63
    A decent summary:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...n#Senate_trial

    Of the 2 charges in the senate, one got 45 and the other 50 votes for guilty. 5 Repugs refused to follow party lines. The Dums held tight for Bill Clinton.

  5. Top | #5
    Veteran Member TV and credit cards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    muh-dahy-nuh
    Posts
    2,568
    Archived
    174
    Total Posts
    2,742
    Rep Power
    25
    I was wondering about this also. Just what powers does the Chief Justice have presiding over an impeachment? So far, I got this: https://www.heritage.org/constitutio...of-impeachment. I haven't looked through any of the "further reading" yet.
    Dwight

  6. Top | #6
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    11,689
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    12,396
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by TV and credit cards View Post
    I was wondering about this also. Just what powers does the Chief Justice have presiding over an impeachment? So far, I got this: https://www.heritage.org/constitutio...of-impeachment. I haven't looked through any of the "further reading" yet.
    Thank you!

    Link:
    " In the first presidential impeachment trial in 1868, Chief Justice Salmon Chase claimed the authority to decide certain procedural questions on his own, but the Senate challenged several of his rulings and overruled him at least twice. "
    ...
    "Because the Constitution both provides the Senate with the "sole power to try impeachments" and empowers "Each House...to determine the Rules of its Proceedings," the Senate has formulated its own special impeachment trial procedures (first written down by Thomas Jefferson when he was Vice President)."
    So the rules are subject to change - I assume that once again only a majority is needed for rule changes? Sounds like the Graham-Turtles are going to have it their way.
    Pity.

  7. Top | #7
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Winter Garden, Florida
    Posts
    1,041
    Archived
    1,496
    Total Posts
    2,537
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    Last time there was an impeachment trial in the Senate, I missed it. We had just moved from Boulder CO to this very rural outpost. I recall driving some distance to obtain sandwich making materials for our first meal, as we had no kitchen and only one half-bath was finished in the house. No sound system, just a little AM/FM radio, which brought in exactly one AM station. We happily settled in on the floor with the dogs to enjoy our meal, listening to the scratchy AM station. I remember thinking "that is an odd selection for a music station" when the Star Spangled banner began a couple of minutes before 6pm. Then ... silence. Took a few minutes to figure out what had happened.
    Needless to say, we were insulated from "da media", and it stayed that way for several months until we got one of those old 10 foot satellite dishes that could be pointed at various satellites to get different TV stations. So I missed the entire Senate trial of Bill Clinton's impeachment. Didn't bother me then, as I was sure beyond any reasonable doubt that a blowjob or "it depends what is is" wasn't going get him thrown out of office anyhow.
    Now, I am wishing I had seen it. Wondering what Justice Roberts' role will look like, and if there are different rules for compelling testimony, among other things. Does anyone here have a feel for those matters?
    Thanks.
    Didn't Clinton's impeachment come down to one vote? I thought it was very close, as was Andrew Johnson's.

    I'd like to break with tradition and see Dotard in Chief get the sack. It could actually happen, particularly with Roberts presiding.
    It wasn't close, it takes a 2/3 majority to remove a president, or any other official that the Congress impeaches. It won't get close if Trump is impeached either. Of course this assumes that nothing comes out that's so over the top, that Republican Senators, in Republican leaning/dominated states feel their seats are in jeopardy.

  8. Top | #8
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    11,689
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    12,396
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Terrell View Post
    It wasn't close, it takes a 2/3 majority to remove a president, or any other official that the Congress impeaches. It won't get close if Trump is impeached either. Of course this assumes that nothing comes out that's so over the top, that Republican Senators, in Republican leaning/dominated states feel their seats are in jeopardy.
    Like Trump committing a very gory murder on live TV or on stage at one of his rallies? An ISIS-style beheading of "human scum" perhaps?

    That might do it. But I suspect Trump is slightly too media-savvy to do that. At least with the cameras running.

  9. Top | #9
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Winter Garden, Florida
    Posts
    1,041
    Archived
    1,496
    Total Posts
    2,537
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Terrell View Post
    It wasn't close, it takes a 2/3 majority to remove a president, or any other official that the Congress impeaches. It won't get close if Trump is impeached either. Of course this assumes that nothing comes out that's so over the top, that Republican Senators, in Republican leaning/dominated states feel their seats are in jeopardy.
    Like Trump committing a very gory murder on live TV or on stage at one of his rallies? An ISIS-style beheading of "human scum" perhaps?

    That might do it. But I suspect Trump is slightly too media-savvy to do that. At least with the cameras running.
    Depends. I think he could murder someone on live TV and not lose support from his base, provided it was someone his base disliked or found unsympathetic. I do think he'd lose enough moderates to lose in the election if the Democratic alternative is tolerable in key states. Now if he skinned a kitten & ate her, on live TV, that might chip into his Republican base. But then again, he might point out that Muhammad loved cats, and it not make a difference.

  10. Top | #10
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Republic of Korea
    Posts
    1,243
    Archived
    1,216
    Total Posts
    2,459
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    Like Trump committing a very gory murder on live TV or on stage at one of his rallies? An ISIS-style beheading of "human scum" perhaps?

    That might do it. But I suspect Trump is slightly too media-savvy to do that. At least with the cameras running.
    Eh, he's also lazy and and a coward. Despite his "You're fired" catch phrase on his "reality" tv show. In real life he fires people over Twitter or gets one of his other lackeys to do it.

    He simply doesn't have the constitution to commit murder himself. Even if it was to kill one of his most hated enemies (like Rosie O'Donnell) and the chance of acquiring one of his most desired treasures (like Barak Obama's Kenyan birth certificate) was held in the balance, I still don't think he could actually do it himself.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •