Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[jeremyrh]

So, forgive a poor foreigner's ignorance, but how does this work - the Senate rules that impeachment is constitutional, and McConnell votes to acquit because impeachment is unconstitutional?  Can a juror vote according to his own personal version of the law? Can a murderer walk free if a juror feels that killing people is not actually illegal?

[Alan Klein]

Based on the AG report, the number is currently unknown. If you read the AG report in its entirety, you will learn that there were a wide variety of factors that led to deaths in the nursing homes.

Agreed. I'm glad you pointed out those other factors. But there were many deaths, maybe into hundreds or thousands that are attributable to his directive of sending sick people back to these facilities where they infected other old people they live and eat within common spaces.  I'm sure that there will be estimates of more exact numbers made available as the investigation continues. But they are substantial.

I'm even willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't done for political reasons.  That he thought it was appropriate and the right thing to do with the facts known at the time.  But it's his denial of all responsibility, blaming the Federal government, and then distorting the statistics and coverup that have people fuming, especially those who have lost parents and grandparents in these homes. His writing a book to advertise his "success" during Covid and getting an Emmy just adds insult to injury. 

[Alan Klein]

Good chance, that half of those 200,000 deaths in that period were results of the Thanksgiving and Christmas travels and family get-togethers.

Be careful what you say or the Truth Squad here will accuse you of making up numbers. 

[Chairman Bill]

.

[Alan Klein]

So, forgive a poor foreigner's ignorance, but how does this work - the Senate rules that impeachment is constitutional, and McConnell votes to acquit because impeachment is unconstitutional?  Can a juror vote according to his own personal version of the law? Can a murderer walk free if a juror feels that killing people is not actually illegal?

McConnell was not in charge of the Senate for the trial. The Democrats were.  So there was a trial because the Democrats voted for it. They thought it was constitutional.  McConnell is now just another Republican senator who can vote for guilt or for acquittal.  He felt as others did that trying a civilian isn't constitutional.  That only president can be impeached and tried for removal from office.  Since Trump was already a civilian at the time of the trial, the trial is moot.  So McConnell voted for acquittal.   

What would have been interesting is if the Senate did find Trump guilty, and ruled that he could no longer run for president or another federal office. Then there would have been another trial where Trump would have sued claiming his trial unconstitutional.  The whole case would have gone to the Supreme Court.  They would determine the Constitutionality of the whole process.  If you recall, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is supposed to be the judge of all impeachments of presidents, refused to sit as judge in the Senate for this impeachment.  He sat as judge for Trump's first impeachment trial.  So the Democrats assigned a Republican senator who already stated before the trial that he thought Trump was guilty, certainly an unfair situation when a judge has pre-judged the outcome.  But the main point is that the Chief Justice bowed out because he understood the constitution did not allow him to be the judge because Trump wasn’t president at the time of the trial. So it's very possible they could have ruled the whole impeachment invalid.

Regarding personal views, jurors are supposed to follow the law.  However, when juries are selected, there are interviews of prospective jurors where these questions are asked before the trial.  If this issue comes up, they would be excluded from being selected as a juror. 

[faberryman]

Be careful what you say or the Truth Squad here will accuse you of making up numbers. 

You waste everyone's time with your false facts and logical fallacies, denials, deflections, run-arounds, rabbit holes, more false facts and logical fallacies, and then you have the temerity to mock us. Your behavior is reprehensible.

[digitaldog]

McConnell was not in charge of the Senate for the trial. The Democrats were.  So there was a trial because the Democrats voted for it.

More generalized misunderstandings.
A poor foreigner's ignorance no, an American.
The poor foreigner should ignore the text quoted.

[Jonathan Cross]

So, forgive a poor foreigner's ignorance, but how does this work - the Senate rules that impeachment is constitutional, and McConnell votes to acquit because impeachment is unconstitutional?  Can a juror vote according to his own personal version of the law? Can a murderer walk free if a juror feels that killing people is not actually illegal?

I am another ignorant foreigner!  I don't understand the rules when I read a report of Republican senators (jurors?) meeting defence team lawyers during the 'trial'.

Jonathan

[Alan Klein]

You waste everyone's time with your false facts and logical fallacies, denials, deflections, run-arounds, rabbit holes, more false facts and logical fallacies, and then you have the temerity to mock us. Your behavior is reprehensible.

Sorry Frank  You're back on my Ignore list.

[Alan Klein]

I am another ignorant foreigner!  I don't understand the rules when I read a report of Republican senators (jurors?) meeting defence team lawyers during the 'trial'.

Jonathan

"Star Chambers" look more like a trial than these Senate impeachment "trials".  The senators pretty much do whatever they want.  Democrat senators I'm sure met with the House's prosecutors as well.  The judge, Senator Leahy of Vermont, a Democrat, already stated before the trial he thought Trump was guilty.  Not only was he the judge at the impeachment trial, but he was also a witness and one of the jurors who voted Trump guilty.  The whole thing was a joke and all political.

[digitaldog]

Sorry Frank  You're back on my Ignore list.

Damn, he beat me to being the first.

[faberryman]

Sorry Frank  You're back on my Ignore list.

I guess that means you won't be responding to my posts pointing out your false facts and logical fallacies with even more false facts, logical fallacies, denials, deflections, run-arounds, and rabbit holes. Everyone wins.

[digitaldog]

I guess that means you won't be responding to my posts pointing out your false facts and logical fallacies with even more false facts, logical fallacies, denials, deflections, run-arounds, and rabbit holes. Everyone wins.

Good point.
Me next, me next. 😜

[faberryman]

"Star Chambers" look more like a trial than these Senate impeachment "trials".  The senators pretty much do whatever they want.  Democrat senators I'm sure met with the House's prosecutors as well.  The judge, Senator Leahy of Vermont, a Democrat, already stated before the trial he thought Trump was guilty.  Not only was he the judge at the impeachment trial, but he was also a witness and one of the jurors who voted Trump guilty.  The whole thing was a joke and all political.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. Senator Leahy was not the judge. He was the presiding officer.

Your objections to the process are entirely hypocritical. If it were a Democratic president who incited the insurrection instead of Trump, you would be on the crew setting up the gibbet on the Capitol lawn.

[Alan Klein]

Damn, he beat me to being the first.

You're still a contender.

[digitaldog]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. Senator Leahy was not the judge. He was the presiding officer.

The first five words in the above sentence was enough. Hopefully before I'm on Alans ignore list, he will see both comments. 🙀

[Alan Klein]

The first five words in the above sentence was enough. Hopefully before I'm on Alans ignore list, he will see both comments. 🙀

Presiding officer or judge.  A distinction without a difference.

[digitaldog]

He’s so predictable, here comes wait for it...

[digitaldog]

Presiding officer or judge.  A distinction without a difference.

A distinction misunderstood. But many foreigners here asking are well aware of this by now.

[LesPalenik]

Sorry Frank  You're back on my Ignore list.

Alan, you know, this is a free website in a free country. It's not compulsory to report your ignore settings. Ignore or un-ignore - you can do it at you leisure, once a week or twice a month, nobody has to know about it. It's not like in the old Soviet Union where they could put you in a gulag for telling jokes about Khrushchev or for divulging some other sensitive information. Same thing if one decides to leave the site or later come back, no need to make a big commotion about it. Better to take some pictures instead.