(12-19-2019, 02:24 PM)hazard Wrote:(12-19-2019, 08:13 AM)GethN7 Wrote: If Trump is going to get convicted of an actual crime (impeachment thus far is not proof he did anything, just an indictment they believe so until the Senate convicts), well, so be it, but I find it telling only one article with a really nebulous at best definition squeaked through and we still don't have all the details what it entails.
At least with Nixon they had it spelled out in black and white all the what, where, why, and how, he just resigned before they could pull the trigger.
If this fails, it looks like a power play that backfired. Worse, I heard the Democrats have threatened to withhold all the details of the articles until they get the Senate to play ball, and that would violate Trump's right as an American citizen to a speedy trial, which should not sit right with anyone regardless of politics. If you like him, he deserves a speedy trial. If you hate him, he should tried ASAP and punished for whatever offenses he is guilty like anyone else with a few delays as possible.
Ehm. No.
Impeachment is not about crimes. Impeachment is, to quote a rather prominent Republican some 20 years back, not about punishment, it is about cleansing the office and restoring honor and integrity to the office.
It is also not a criminal trial. No official has a right to a speedy impeachment. In fact, the Senate doesn't even have the power to assign him legal punishments, as he's not a member of the legislative branch (which would be subject to the appropriate ethics committee), legal punishments are the sole province of the judiciary, and all the judiciary is allowed to do during the impeachment is ensure the process proceeds within the bounds set by the rules.
Trump can be tried in a criminal proceeding after he has been removed from office, regardless of how he is removed from office, be it impeachment, resignation or failure to be reelected. And the Senate can decide to send all their evidence and all testimonies to the executive branch after the impeachment proceeding has concluded with the note 'it's probably a good idea to prosecute this in', which the executive branch is not required to heed unless the Senate passes a law to that effect, which would infringe the various States' legal representatives traditional but unwritten right to decide on who to prosecute regardless of political or public pressure.
Also, if every head of state the USA has ever known has abused their office, by all means, prosecute them as well, and let the judicial process decide whether or not it is something worth punishing them for.
Ok, I stand corrected.