Jump to content

Law professor and former federal prosecutor explains why a ‘fundamentally deficient’ Senate trial will acquit Trump — but not exonerate him


Recommended Posts

Law professor and former federal prosecutor explains why a ‘fundamentally deficient’ Senate trial will acquit Trump — but not exonerate him

 

In a tweet posted on December 19, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi explained why she was holding onto the two articles of impeachment that President Donald Trump has been indicted on: she was concerned that a “rogue leader of the Senate,” Mitch McConnell, had no intention of honestly evaluating the evidence against a “rogue president.” It remains to be seen how much longer Pelosi will hold onto the two articles before sending them to the U.S. Senate for a trial, but legal expert and former federal prosecutor Joyce White Vance — in a December 26 article for Time Magazine — explains why an acquittal of Trump in the Senate wouldn’t be the same as an exoneration.

“So far,” Vance writes, “Senate Majority Leader McConnell hasn’t agreed to let House Democrats put on any witnesses, and there’s no word on what, if any, other evidence will be permitted. Yes, the chief justice of the Supreme Court oversees the proceedings, but precedent in this area — most recently from the (Bill) Clinton impeachment — suggests he’ll play a very limited role, more of a custodian than a judge of the law. In any event, his decisions can be overruled by a vote of 51 Senators. The Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate.”  

In a tweet posted on December 19, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi explained why she was holding onto the two articles of impeachment that President Donald Trump has been indicted on: she was concerned that a “rogue leader of the Senate,” Mitch McConnell, had no intention of honestly evaluating the evidence against a “rogue president.” It remains to be seen how much longer Pelosi will hold onto the two articles before sending them to the U.S. Senate for a trial, but legal expert and former federal prosecutor Joyce White Vance — in a December 26 article for Time Magazine — explains why an acquittal of Trump in the Senate wouldn’t be the same as an exoneration.

“Trump may be acquitted by the Senate,” Vance asserts, “but if the process is fundamentally deficient — a mockery of a system designed to seek the truth — that acquittal will not exonerate him. No matter what he says, everyone will know it’s not true.”   https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/law-professor-and-former-federal-prosecutor-explains-why-a-fundamentally-deficient-senate-trial-will-acquit-trump-but-not-exonerate-him/?utm_source=push_notifications

https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/law-professor-and-former-federal-prosecutor-explains-why-a-fundamentally-deficient-senate-trial-will-acquit-trump-but-not-exonerate-him/?utm_source=push_notifications  Image result for kangaroo court

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The House process was blatantly partisan.  McConnell has expressed a desire to use the exact same rules/process used for the Clinton impeachment trial...nothing wrong with that.

 

While the writer of the Op/Ed in the OP might not think the not guilty verdict that will come out of the Senate (assuming Piglosi decides to stop obstruction the Senate) is not an exoneration, the reality is the majority of people view a not guilty verdict in a criminal case the same as "innocent" and an exoneration.  The same perception will be true with a not guilty verdict here.  When it comes to the voting public...facts are irrelevant, perception is all that matters.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BatteryPowered said:

The House process was blatantly partisan.  McConnell has expressed a desire to use the exact same rules/process used for the Clinton impeachment trial...nothing wrong with that.

 

While the writer of the Op/Ed in the OP might not think the not guilty verdict that will come out of the Senate (assuming Piglosi decides to stop obstruction the Senate) is not an exoneration, the reality is the majority of people view a not guilty verdict in a criminal case the same as "innocent" and an exoneration.  The same perception will be true with a not guilty verdict here.  When it comes to the voting public...facts are irrelevant, perception is all that matters.

 

it is but the broke no rules and used no false hoods motives are not important they were partisan but so what? as long as they presented honest evidence, which they did 100% what they did was fine, many honest republicans take this view point. yes Democrats are partisan well duh everyone is, so what?  But the honest republicans say the evidence they prestned was cridible and did make the case trump abused power, often in e this world people do the right things for the wrong reasons, the oj trial comes to mind was mark furman a racist? yes, did he plant evidence? maybe does that mean oj was innocent , Bad word no oj was guilty as sin, the bias the police showed actually helped him get off, but we all know he was giulty and belonged on death row

this is like that the democrats are biased no doubt of that does that make trump innocent? Bad word no, and even honest republicans who have sacrifised their carreers say so , Trump is guilty the evidence is over whelming, are the democrats partisan and biased of course, how could that not be. but it did not effect the credibility of the evidence it was all kosher 

Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy.

A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming the argument and its conclusion. Indeed, it is often assumed that the mere possibility of motive is evidence enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, guilluamezenz said:

it is but the broke no rules and used no false hoods motives are not important they were partisan but so what? as long as they presented honest evidence, which they did 100% what they did was fine, many honest republicans take this view point. yes Democrats are partisan well duh everyone is, so what?  But the honest republicans say the evidence they prestned was cridible and did make the case trump abused power, often in e this world people do the right things for the wrong reasons, the oj trial comes to mind was mark furman a racist? yes, did he plant evidence? maybe does that mean oj was innocent , Bad word no oj was guilty as sin, the bias the police showed actually helped him get off, but we all know he was giulty and belonged on death row

this is like that the democrats are biased no doubt of that does that make trump innocent? Bad word no, and even honest republicans who have sacrifised their carreers say so , Trump is guilty the evidence is over whelming, are the democrats partisan and biased of course, how could that not be. but it did not effect the credibility of the evidence it was all kosher 

Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy.

A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming the argument and its conclusion. Indeed, it is often assumed that the mere possibility of motive is evidence enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

 

Wow...when you are doing "cut and paste" you typing, grammar and punctuation are at the 5th grade level.  If you have no problem with demonrats being partisan, you should have no problem with republicans being partisan.  After all, everyone is.

 

BTW...I don't consider hearsay, assumption and presumption credible evidence.  You are free to feel it is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why Trump will not only be exonerated when acquitted in the Senate but also have impeachment expunged... In November 2020 when the Republicans take back the house all it will require is to pass a resolution removing the impeachment and a majority vote in the Senate... And poof... The impeachment is gone forever. Now Democrats will of course still cry that he was impeached but legally if it is removed by resolution historically they can never claim he was the third president to be impeached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Giujo said:

Why Trump will not only be exonerated when acquitted in the Senate but also have impeachment expunged... In November 2020 when the Republicans take back the house all it will require is to pass a resolution removing the impeachment and a majority vote in the Senate... And poof... The impeachment is gone forever. Now Democrats will of course still cry that he was impeached but legally if it is removed by resolution historically they can never claim he was the third president to be impeached.

 

+10 !!

Sir,

I like the way you think. 

If you ran for Congress, millions of people would vote for you.   

And I would be one of them.        😇.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Taipan said:

 

+10 !!

Sir,

I like the way you think. 

If you ran for Congress, millions of people would vote for you.   

And I would be one of them.        😇.

Having been a Legislative Assistant for a New York Senator I would always prefer to be the guy behind the politician... Pulling the strings!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

Wow...when you are doing "cut and paste" you typing, grammar and punctuation are at the 5th grade level.  If you have no problem with demonrats being partisan, you should have no problem with republicans being partisan.  After all, everyone is.

 

BTW...I don't consider hearsay, assumption and presumption credible evidence.  You are free to feel it is.

 

you can criticize my  grammar but not my reasoning or my documatation , i have it all right and thats why you can only bitch about minor detals you have no refutation of my truth 

375px-Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreeme
 
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement lists name calling as the lowest type of argument in a disagreement.

Name calling is a form of verbal abuse in which insulting or demeaning labels are directed at an individual or group. This phenomenon is studied by a variety of academic disciplines such as anthropology, child psychology, and political

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, guilluamezenz said:

you can criticize my  grammar but not my reasoning or my documatation , i have it all right and thats why you can only bitch about minor detals you have no refutation of my truth 

 
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement lists name calling as the lowest type of argument in a disagreement.

Name calling is a form of verbal abuse in which insulting or demeaning labels are directed at an individual or group. This phenomenon is studied by a variety of academic disciplines such as anthropology, child psychology, and political

 

Like I said, feel free to consider hearsay, assumption and presumption to be evidence.  I don't.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BatteryPowered said:

The House process was blatantly partisan.  McConnell has expressed a desire to use the exact same rules/process used for the Clinton impeachment trial...nothing wrong with that.

 

While the writer of the Op/Ed in the OP might not think the not guilty verdict that will come out of the Senate (assuming Piglosi decides to stop obstruction the Senate) is not an exoneration, the reality is the majority of people view a not guilty verdict in a criminal case the same as "innocent" and an exoneration.  The same perception will be true with a not guilty verdict here.  When it comes to the voting public...facts are irrelevant, perception is all that matters.

 

and the perception will be there throughout the Republicans did not give a fair hearing. The folks who will think Trump is exonerated are already Trump supporters. McConnell was dumb enough to say out front that he would not give a fair hearing. The trumpanzees are that stupid but the general populace is not. Trump will not be exonerated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, slideman said:

and the perception will be there throughout the Republicans did not give a fair hearing. The folks who will think Trump is exonerated are already Trump supporters. McConnell was dumb enough to say out front that he would not give a fair hearing. The trumpanzees are that stupid but the general populace is not. Trump will not be exonerated.


Do you think Sanders, Warren, Booker and Klobuchar are unbiased and impartial (after campaigning for Trump to be impeached since they entered the race)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, guilluamezenz said:

Law professor and former federal prosecutor explains why a ‘fundamentally deficient’ Senate trial will acquit Trump — but not exonerate him

 

In a tweet posted on December 19, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi explained why she was holding onto the two articles of impeachment that President Donald Trump has been indicted on: she was concerned that a “rogue leader of the Senate,” Mitch McConnell, had no intention of honestly evaluating the evidence against a “rogue president.” It remains to be seen how much longer Pelosi will hold onto the two articles before sending them to the U.S. Senate for a trial, but legal expert and former federal prosecutor Joyce White Vance — in a December 26 article for Time Magazine — explains why an acquittal of Trump in the Senate wouldn’t be the same as an exoneration.

“So far,” Vance writes, “Senate Majority Leader McConnell hasn’t agreed to let House Democrats put on any witnesses, and there’s no word on what, if any, other evidence will be permitted. Yes, the chief justice of the Supreme Court oversees the proceedings, but precedent in this area — most recently from the (Bill) Clinton impeachment — suggests he’ll play a very limited role, more of a custodian than a judge of the law. In any event, his decisions can be overruled by a vote of 51 Senators. The Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate.”  

In a tweet posted on December 19, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi explained why she was holding onto the two articles of impeachment that President Donald Trump has been indicted on: she was concerned that a “rogue leader of the Senate,” Mitch McConnell, had no intention of honestly evaluating the evidence against a “rogue president.” It remains to be seen how much longer Pelosi will hold onto the two articles before sending them to the U.S. Senate for a trial, but legal expert and former federal prosecutor Joyce White Vance — in a December 26 article for Time Magazine — explains why an acquittal of Trump in the Senate wouldn’t be the same as an exoneration.

“Trump may be acquitted by the Senate,” Vance asserts, “but if the process is fundamentally deficient — a mockery of a system designed to seek the truth — that acquittal will not exonerate him. No matter what he says, everyone will know it’s not true.”   https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/law-professor-and-former-federal-prosecutor-explains-why-a-fundamentally-deficient-senate-trial-will-acquit-trump-but-not-exonerate-him/?utm_source=push_notifications

https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/law-professor-and-former-federal-prosecutor-explains-why-a-fundamentally-deficient-senate-trial-will-acquit-trump-but-not-exonerate-him/?utm_source=push_notifications  Image result for kangaroo court

A law professor that doesn't know exoneration isn't needed? 😂

 

Oh wait.....alternet......🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...