Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1737476787999

Comments

  • Golden Key wrote: »
    I saw a reference to a petition to impeach both T AND Barr. I think it's through CREDO Action.

    Sounds like a great way to unite the GOP. I prefer the approach of whoever it was that said Trump wasn't worth the bother.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Interesting nighttime reading: The Mueller (Redacted) Report Just read the summaries and the conclusions.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I saw a reference to a petition to impeach both T AND Barr. I think it's through CREDO Action.

    Sounds like a great way to unite the GOP. I prefer the approach of whoever it was that said Trump wasn't worth the bother.

    Nancy Pelosi?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I saw a reference to a petition to impeach both T AND Barr. I think it's through CREDO Action.
    Sounds like a great way to unite the GOP. I prefer the approach of whoever it was that said Trump wasn't worth the bother.

    I'm pretty sure the Republicans are already united around Trump. Likewise their idea that the president is above the law has long been apparent. At least if the president is a Republican. Democratic presidents are, in their view, inherently illegitimate and can be impeached for lying about a blow job.

    I take a different view. The American constitutional system runs in large part on norms and tradition. If you establish a norm that candidates (or their campaign staff) can conspire with hostile foreign governments for electoral advantage or that presidents can use the power of their office to conceal wrongdoing then there will be a lot more of both in the future. Saying that it's not "worth the bother" to check a lawless president is effectively saying that presidential lawlessness is okay.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Interesting nighttime reading: The Mueller (Redacted) Report Just read the summaries and the conclusions.

    A searchable document could facilitate the "Washington read" of the document. For those unfamiliar with the term the Washington read is what happens when a new political book comes out. You look through the index for your name, the name of your boss, and the names of your enemies. You then read those sections of the book and use that to fake having read the whole thing.

    So what do you get a busy Attorney General for Easter weekend? If you're the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee you get him a shiny new subpœna! (The following text is from the linked article and not a quote from @Gramps49.)
    The House judiciary chairman, Jerry Nadler, on Friday issued a subpoena for the full, unredacted report by special counsel Robert Mueller on Russian interference in the 2016 US election and the Trump campaign.

    The subpoena seeks not only the “complete and unredacted” report, but also all of the underlying documents referenced in it, including grand jury evidence. The New York Democrat said on Good Morning America that the information was necessary “to make informed decisions” on what happens next.

    It's almost like Nadler doesn't regard Bill Barr as an honest and impartial conveyor of information. Not sure if this is going to "unite the GOP" any more than it already is, but I'm unconvinced that's a reasonable guide for Democratic action.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    I take a different view. The American constitutional system runs in large part on norms and tradition. If you establish a norm that candidates (or their campaign staff) can conspire with hostile foreign governments for electoral advantage or that presidents can use the power of their office to conceal wrongdoing then there will be a lot more of both in the future. Saying that it's not "worth the bother" to check a lawless president is effectively saying that presidential lawlessness is okay.

    On the one hand I agree -- on the other hand it seems that norms aren't particularly strong, and are vulnerable to a single individual with sufficient brass neck.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    It seems like senior Democrats are starting to come around to your position Croesos.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    It seems like senior Democrats are starting to come around to your position Croesos.

    Pelosi has always said she does not want to go through impeachment. But she did say all avenues need to be investigated because that is the oversight responsibility of the Congress.

    There are other avenues that might be pursued, most notably censuring the president. Means nothing legally, no more than a slap on the wrist but it certainly would be embarrassing to this president.

    Remember how the Republicans just could not the Benghazi incident go because it was embarrassing for Clinton? What comes around, goes around.
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited April 21
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I take a different view. The American constitutional system runs in large part on norms and tradition. If you establish a norm that candidates (or their campaign staff) can conspire with hostile foreign governments for electoral advantage or that presidents can use the power of their office to conceal wrongdoing then there will be a lot more of both in the future. Saying that it's not "worth the bother" to check a lawless president is effectively saying that presidential lawlessness is okay.

    I've read here more than once that impeachment is a political, not a legal process, indeed I think you yourself have said as much. If so then impeachment is less about deciding something is OK and more about whether one can be sure of the outcome.

    I'm really not convinced Trump could be successfully impeached, not only because the GOP would rally round him even more than at present, but because he is the kind of person who shows every sign of turning such a process to his advantage, for whom there is no such thing as bad publicity. He'd be happy to see repeated headlines about "Trump impeachment" because they had the word 'Trump" in them.

    I think chipping away with subpoenas and the like that expose the corrupt nature of the current administration and erode its credibility is a much better strategy for weakening Trump even if it appears less spectacular.
  • Impeachment is a legal process in theory. The US constitution defines grounds for impeachment and removal from office. Having read some serious legal scholars about this, I think for the Framers, the legal definition was quite specific and uncontroversial.

    However. However, the power of impeachment and removal from office was given to Congress and thus it is unavoidably a political process.

    The impeachment of Clinton was fundamentally flawed, legally very dubious* and clearly political.

    Conversely, Trump's behaviour meets the legal standard** for impeachment very easily but whilst impeachment by the HoR is highly likely, conviction by the Senate by 2rds majority remains (at the moment) very unlikely.

    In theory the decision-making in Congess should only be based on protecting the institutions and the constitution. In practice, it is inevitable that there will be some political calculation. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Nixon resigned when it became clear he had lost his own party and hence Senate conviction was a certainty (he believed).

    Also, I think that there's a lot of punditry reading the politics wrong. The comparisons with Clinton may well be unhelpful as a large proportion saw the impeachment as politically motivated.

    There are 3 constituencies of Trump support (AFAICS)***
    1) the Core; these are the ones who will react badly to impeachment procedures but they're gonna support him anyway
    2) Republican loyalists; these aren't natural Trump supporters but like anyone who beat Hillary and pretends to be pro-Life. This is a constituency who could be driven towards stronger support for Trump. But they're unlikely to support any Democrat anyway. Moreover some of them believe in what they say and will reject Trump as the truth is laid out.
    3) The undecideds. The ones that by a narrow margin delivered key states. Currently not showing strong support for Trump. Whilst there clearly is a risk of a backlash if Impeachment was seen a political, they are also likely to reject Trump as it becomes clearer what he has done.

    So, I don't buy the argument that politically the Democrats shouldn't impeach. They should anyway for legal/moral reasons but I am not convinced that it is automatically a political mistake to do so. Conversely, I think some consideration of Timing to see if the Senate moves, is worthwhile.

    AFZ

    *Clinton's bad behaviour with an intern certainly does not meet the legal test for impeachment. Whether he attempted to obstruct justice is more debatable. And was a closer vote in the Senate Trial. (A majority IIRC, just not 2/3rds).
    **corruption of the election process, allowing undue influence from a foreign power and abuse of presidential power are precisely the kind of things they had in mind. And note, these things don't necessarily have to be illegal in themselves, but actions by a president that are against the Republic are why the words 'and misdemeanors' are there.
    ***I haven't mentioned likelihood of voting here but I don't think it changes the analysis. Trump diehards would react very strongly to impeachment procedures. They are a minority. It is how everyone else reacts that matters.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    If Trump is impeached and removed from office, we get Pence, who might then get elected in 2020. Much as I dread another almost two years of Trump, I'd rather see him soundly defeated in 2020* and then being brought up on every charge they can possibly throw at him.

    *Hopefully in the bigliest landslide ever.
  • Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    If Trump is impeached and removed from office, we get Pence, who might then get elected in 2020.

    Only if Pence doesn't get impeached as well.

    Pence is not the electoral force that Trump is because he doesn't replicate his personality cult.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    At this point in the game, a likely timetable for impeachment would go on into next year which is an election year. While the HoR may start the impeachment process, the Senate would defer until after the election. Then, because it will be a new Congress, everything will have to start over again.

    Conclusion, let the people decide if they want to have this administratin
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    ...Clinton's bad behaviour with an intern certainly does not meet the legal test for impeachment ...
    Is it maybe the case that his impeachment wasn't so much for bad behaviour with an intern as for telling porky pies about it?

    As for Trump impeachment, I'm inclined to agree with Pigwidgeon - if he can be defeated in 2020 (please God), then presumably as he'd no longer be President, they could throw the book at him.

  • Piglet wrote: »
    ...Clinton's bad behaviour with an intern certainly does not meet the legal test for impeachment ...
    Is it maybe the case that his impeachment wasn't so much for bad behaviour with an intern as for telling porky pies about it?

    As for Trump impeachment, I'm inclined to agree with Pigwidgeon - if he can be defeated in 2020 (please God), then presumably as he'd no longer be President, they could throw the book at him.

    Yeah, sorry, technically the article of impeachment was for perjury. He probably didn't commit that even and if he did the idea that perjury in a civil case is grounds for removal from office is silly. Except in the heads of all these zealots for the truth, who now defend Trump but anyway...

    I agree though that once Trump leaves office, he MUST face prosecution. And the best thing for America and the world is that it happens by whichever means is quickest...

    AFZ

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Thanks very much for your detailed thoughts AFZ. I'm waving about like a stalk of wheat on this issue. I was interested in this though:
    So, I don't buy the argument that politically the Democrats shouldn't impeach. They should anyway for legal/moral reasons but I am not convinced that it is automatically a political mistake to do so. Conversely, I think some consideration of Timing to see if the Senate moves, is worthwhile.

    I think the moral issues are clear, and you probably agree with Croesos on the issue. I wonder what you mean by legal in that italicised bit? What's the legal reason to impeach? I'm not attempting an adversarial gotcha, btw.
  • I've read around on this a bit. One of the best reads is this one: Cass Sunstein, Impeachment, A citizen's guide.

    What I really like about this is that Sunstein lays out why the power of impeachment was put in the constitution. If we accept the idea that Impeachment is technically a legal matter, despite the fact that the Framers gave the power to Congress and not the courts, then we have a legal standard to work to. I don't think it a controversial statement to argue that judicial systems work on a simple principle - if someone commits a crime, they should be prosecuted for it. Most systems do indeed give discretion to prosecutors but on the whole, it is expected that laws be enforced. Constitutional law in this case is designed to stop abuses of power. The driving force here for the Framers is that they felt the Office of the President was going to need broad powers but they desperately did not want an Elected King. They were literally rebelling against a mad king and knew being elected would not stop a president from abusing his (/her) power.

    The mechanics of impeachment are very specific - they apply to only certain offices (President, VP, judges... I can't quite remember all of them), but the legal principle is surely the same - the law should apply equally to all. Let's take it to an extreme; let's say that impeachment of a president could only apply to Democrats...* That would clearly be a legal problem. Presidents of any party should be subject to impeachment if their behaviour meets the criteria set forth in the Constitution.

    I am not a legal scholar by any means - just an interested amateur - but having read about this properly, I don't think there is any real doubt that Trump's behaviour both in the Campaign** and since taking office meets these criteria - thus the Constitution expects Congress to act. In the same way that it expects other aspects of the legal system to pursue ordinary criminals.

    AFZ

    *I can't imagine what made me think of it this way...
    **There is some debate about whether impeachable acts can be carried out before taking office - or only apply to acts committed whilst holding said office. This is arguably an open question, but I was convinced by the notion that corrupt behaviour to gain office in the first place (i.e. electoral fraud for example) should also be grounds for impeachment. I don't think it really matters here as the Obstruction of Justice case is likely to be compelling.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    I'd rather see him soundly defeated in 2020* and then being brought up on every charge they can possibly throw at him.
    I'd like to see FBI agents waiting for him to step down off the dais on Inauguration Day and then immediately lead him away in handcuffs.
  • Does a press secretary directly lying mean anything? Sarah Huckabee Sanders admits lying.

    In the current world of fibbing lying liars perhaps no one can get charged or anything else?
  • Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    I'd rather see him soundly defeated in 2020* and then being brought up on every charge they can possibly throw at him.
    I'd like to see FBI agents waiting for him to step down off the dais on Inauguration Day and then immediately lead him away in handcuffs.

    It's nice to think about. Unfortunately, no matter how much evidence there is, many people - even non-Trumpers - might object on the grounds that prosecuting political losers is a slippery slope that many other less-democratic countries have gone down already. If it was that easy, every living president would have already been convicted of war crimes or crimes against humanity after leaving office.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    If Trump is impeached and removed from office, we get Pence, who might then get elected in 2020.

    Only if Pence doesn't get impeached as well.

    Pence is not the electoral force that Trump is because he doesn't replicate his personality cult.

    Yeah, but Pence worries me for two other reasons...

    1. I believe that as a typical Republican, he'd actually be more extreme than Trump.

    2. As a cynical electoral calculation, I think having Trump fronting the GOP helps the Democrats get their supporters to the polls, because a lot of them view him as more of a menace than other Republicans.

    And yes, I realize that the idea Trump is the more moderate Republican contradicts the idea that he's the greater menace, but voter percpetions are not always logical.



  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    I'd like to see FBI agents waiting for him to step down off the dais on Inauguration Day and then immediately lead him away in handcuffs.

    From your lips keyboard to God's ears.

  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Does a press secretary directly lying mean anything? Sarah Huckabee Sanders admits lying.

    In the current world of fibbing lying liars perhaps no one can get charged or anything else?
    Not quite. A REPUBLICAN press secretary directly lying means nothing. If she was a Democrat, the death penalty would be deemed too lenient.

  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    Does a press secretary directly lying mean anything? Sarah Huckabee Sanders admits lying.

    In the current world of fibbing lying liars perhaps no one can get charged or anything else?
    Not quite. A REPUBLICAN press secretary directly lying means nothing. If she was a Democrat, the death penalty would be deemed too lenient.

    That's about the size of it.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited April 22
    The mechanics of impeachment are very specific - they apply to only certain offices (President, VP, judges... I can't quite remember all of them), but the legal principle is surely the same - the law should apply equally to all.

    Impeachment applies to any official of the federal government except for members of Congress. For misbehaving Congresscritters a two-thirds vote of their chamber is sufficient to expel them. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution didn't want one chamber of Congress to be dependent on the other for maintaining discipline.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    cheers afz. Appreciate it.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    An interesting question that gives constitutional originalists fits is who presides over the impeachment of the vice president? Here are the relevant bits of the U.S. Constitution:
    Art. I, §3, cl. 4
    The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

    Art. I, §3, cl. 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.

    So the vice president presides over the Senate except when the President is tried after impeachment. The conflict of interest in such a case is obvious, since the vice president would become president if the current president is removed from office via impeachment. However, the Framers of the Constitution did not specify who would preside over the impeachment trial of a vice president. Taking the text as written would imply that the vice president would preside over his own trial, as he would over the impeachment of a judge or cabinet secretary, but this clearly goes against the legal tradition of judicial neutrality.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    How do we interpret or use a Senate vote to acquit, in a legal sense? Does the rule against double-jeopardy mean that a President acquitted by the senate on an impeachment by the house cannot later be tried for crimes which have the same factual basis as the impeachment?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    How do we interpret or use a Senate vote to acquit, in a legal sense? Does the rule against double-jeopardy mean that a President acquitted by the senate on an impeachment by the house cannot later be tried for crimes which have the same factual basis as the impeachment?

    The criminal justice system is considered completely separate from the impeachment process.
    Art. I, §3, cl. 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.

    Technically speaking the U.S. Constitution doesn't say anything about those acquitted following impeachment. However, the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment would seem to imply that it doesn't apply to those who are acquitted by the Senate in an impeachment trial.
    Amendment V
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Since the penalties that attach to a successfully prosecuted impeachment are limited "to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States" it seems evident that someone acquitted by an impeachment trial has not been "put in jeopardy of life or limb" even once.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Cheers Croesus.
  • That's an interesting point, so in theory, the House could impeach, the terrifyingly craven GOP Senate could then acquit (is that the right term?); then Trump wins in 2020 (Heaven forbid) but the Senate changes and the House impeaches again...

    Curious...

    As to who presides over a VP trial... I guess it would still be the Chief Justice. Not that it really matters because IIRC, this presiding is meant to have no influence on proceedings...

    Seriously though if it looked like Trump was going to be removed from office and Pence was implicated (as he may well be by any putative Congressional investigation) then I can see Pence resigning rather than waiting the few days to be impeached himself. Unless he was convinced that a Senate that had just convicted Trump wouldn't convict him for the same crimes.

    Reading about the development of the Constitution really did give me a new-found admiration for the Framers. The work they did to try to make the Constitution completely fool-proof is genuinely impressive. Of course as Douglas Adams pointed out the difficulty here is how often people underestimate the incredible ingenuity of complete fools.

    AFZ
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Hey, it looks like we may have our first Contempt of Congress winner!
    House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings says he'll schedule a vote on whether to hold a former administration official in contempt of Congress after he failed to come for a hearing.

    Cummings had subpoenaed former White House Personnel Security Director Carl Kline to appear for a deposition with committee staff Tuesday. But Kline -- at the administration's direction -- didn't show up.

    It should be noted that the White House has not asserted any kind of privilege under which Kline could refuse to testify, so essentially they feel like it's okay to blow off a Congressional subpœna. I'm not sure what penalties, if any, attach to someone found guilty of Contempt of Congress.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I'm not sure what penalties, if any, attach to someone found guilty of Contempt of Congress.
    In theory it is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. But there's a Catch 22. See here for details.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Technically, I think the Senate can either affirm the articles of impeachment, or decline the articles of impeachment--there is no finding of guilt or acquittal as in a criminal case.

    If someone is found in contempt of congress they can be locked up until they decide to be in compliance with congress. This can get interesting.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Technically, I think the Senate can either affirm the articles of impeachment, or decline the articles of impeachment--there is no finding of guilt or acquittal as in a criminal case.

    That sounds right but this Wiki article seems to imply that 'conviction' and 'acquittal' are the correct terms.

    AFZ

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Is it the Capitol Police responsible for that or some other body? Locking them up I mean.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Several months ago a friend sent me a meme:
    By my calculations, the entire national debt could be erased if Donald Trump's impeachment trial were pay-per-view.

    Since I'm apparently the only registered Democrat in the U.S. who hasn't yet announced my candidacy for President, I think I shall do that in a few days, with my "platform" being the above. (I may actually beat Elizabeth Warren to that one.)
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    It's ridiculous, what's happening with the Democrats and all these candidates. First of all, it's too early -- next March would be soon enough. I for one am tired of hearing about them -- and I'm only paying scant attention! There are other things happening in the world (aren't there?) for the media to be reporting on.

    Second of all, there are too many of them. Get together, Democratic Party (you do have some organization left, don't you?) and settle on a half dozen or so viable candidates. Then send them all on vacation until next March.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    First of all, it's too early -- next March would be soon enough.

    I think convincing candidates to hold off campaigning until after the Iowa caucuses (3 Feb 2020), New Hampshire primary (11 Feb 2020), Nevada caucuses (22 Feb 2020), and South Carolina primary (29 Feb 2020) will be a hard sell. Good luck convincing them though. Conventional wisdom is that it's better to campaign before the election rather than after.
    Second of all, there are too many of them. Get together, Democratic Party (you do have some organization left, don't you?) and settle on a half dozen or so viable candidates. Then send them all on vacation until next March.

    I'm guessing that a good number of them will drop out following disappointing returns in the four aforementioned early contests.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I think convincing candidates to hold off campaigning until after the Iowa caucuses (3 Feb 2020), New Hampshire primary (11 Feb 2020), Nevada caucuses (22 Feb 2020), and South Carolina primary (29 Feb 2020) will be a hard sell.
    God did not dictate the dates on which caucuses must be held.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I think convincing candidates to hold off campaigning until after the Iowa caucuses (3 Feb 2020), New Hampshire primary (11 Feb 2020), Nevada caucuses (22 Feb 2020), and South Carolina primary (29 Feb 2020) will be a hard sell.
    God did not dictate the dates on which caucuses must be held.

    Not God, perhaps, but NH has a state law decreeing that it hold the nation's first primary. Comes under constant attack, as we're a small, rural, lily-white state.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    So if State X changed its primary to January 1 you'd be up the creek, then . . . ?
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Kim met with Putin the other day. Oh! How they laughed!
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    So if State X changed its primary to January 1 you'd be up the creek, then . . . ?

    Primary and caucus dates are set by state political parties, but the national party apparatus on both sides has let it be known that any state that tries to move their primaries/caucuses to a date before the Iowa and New Hampshire contests would see their convention delegate count either cut or excluded from the convention. This was to combat the primary schedule from creeping ever earlier in the calendar each year, which it had been doing. At one point Iowa and New Hampshire held their contests in early January just to keep ahead.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited April 25
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Technically, I think the Senate can either affirm the articles of impeachment, or decline the articles of impeachment--there is no finding of guilt or acquittal as in a criminal case.

    That sounds right but this Wiki article seems to imply that 'conviction' and 'acquittal' are the correct terms.

    AFZ

    Problem with wiki is that it is written mostly by lay people and is not peer reviewed per se. I can only remember when Clinton was impeached.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Technically, I think the Senate can either affirm the articles of impeachment, or decline the articles of impeachment--there is no finding of guilt or acquittal as in a criminal case.

    That sounds right but this Wiki article seems to imply that 'conviction' and 'acquittal' are the correct terms.

    AFZ

    Problem with wiki is that it is written mostly by lay people and is not peer reviewed per se. I can only remember when Clinton was impeached.

    Yeah, me being lazy. I'll go look it up properly...
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited April 25
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Technically, I think the Senate can either affirm the articles of impeachment, or decline the articles of impeachment--there is no finding of guilt or acquittal as in a criminal case.

    That sounds right but this Wiki article seems to imply that 'conviction' and 'acquittal' are the correct terms.

    AFZ

    Problem with wiki is that it is written mostly by lay people and is not peer reviewed per se. I can only remember when Clinton was impeached.

    Yeah, me being lazy. I'll go look it up properly...

    Don't go to the trouble. I am finding "acquit" and "convict" being used interchangeably with "affirm" or "decline."
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Technically, I think the Senate can either affirm the articles of impeachment, or decline the articles of impeachment--there is no finding of guilt or acquittal as in a criminal case.

    That sounds right but this Wiki article seems to imply that 'conviction' and 'acquittal' are the correct terms.

    AFZ

    Problem with wiki is that it is written mostly by lay people and is not peer reviewed per se. I can only remember when Clinton was impeached.

    Yeah, me being lazy. I'll go look it up properly...

    Don't go to the trouble. I am finding "acquit" and "convict" being used interchangeably with "affirm" or "decline."

    Section 3: clause 6 of the US constitution:
    ...and no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

    AFZ
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    For those wanting to look it up themselves that's section 3, clause 6 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
  • :blush: thanks
Sign In or Register to comment.