Clinton Impeecheted?

[Stinger]

Like any other acquittal, it is not a finding of innocence; but it is not a finding of guilt either.

In the eyes of the law it is. Now you are free to hold your own personal opinion. But as far as the law your are innocent until proven guilty and once you are declared "not guilty" in a courtroom there can be no further proceedings against you by the government. That is NOT the case in an impeachment where the constitution specifically states further legal action by the government can take place.

As I have already cited from authoritative sources, an impeachment is like no other proceeding. Do you know of a legal proceeding where the jury decides the proceedings, whether there will be witnesses or not, how many days of testimony each side will be allowed, etc.?

That being said, do you imply that the role of the Senate is to judge guilty or innocent or as the constitution says that judgement is limited to remove or not to remove and that any other matters are the sole duty of the courts? Do you agree that in the Clinton impeachment many Senators believed he committed the acts but did not believe they rose to the level of an impeachable offense?

 

[Iriemon]

In the eyes of the law it is. Now you are free to hold your own personal opinion. But as far as the law your are innocent until proven guilty and once you are declared "not guilty" in a courtroom there can be no further proceedings against you by the government. That is NOT the case in an impeachment where the constitution specifically states further legal action by the government can take place.

As I have already cited from authoritative sources, an impeachment is like no other proceeding. Do you know of a legal proceeding where the jury decides the proceedings, whether there will be witnesses or not, how many days of testimony each side will be allowed, etc.?

That being said, do you imply that the role of the Senate is to judge guilty or innocent or as the constitution says that judgement is limited to remove or not to remove and that any other matters are the sole duty of the courts?

Of course the Senate considers guilt or innonce. Why else would they have a trial of any sort if they were supposed to rely upon the determination by the House? If the person is not guilt obviously they will not impose punishment.

Do you agree that in the Clinton impeachment many Senators believed he committed the acts but did not believe they rose to the level of an impeachable offense?

I agree they said what they said; a third possibility is that whether they thought Clinton was guilty or not of the charges conviction was not warranted, and so did not feel it necessary to explore the issue of guilt.

 

[Stinger]

In the eyes of the law it is. Now you are free to hold your own personal opinion. But as far as the law your are innocent until proven guilty and once you are declared "not guilty" in a courtroom there can be no further proceedings against you by the government. That is NOT the case in an impeachment where the constitution specifically states further legal action by the government can take place.

As I have already cited from authoritative sources, an impeachment is like no other proceeding. Do you know of a legal proceeding where the jury decides the proceedings, whether there will be witnesses or not, how many days of testimony each side will be allowed, etc.?

Of course the Senate considers guilt or innonce.

A Senator can, but they don't have to since that is not the core issue. As in the Clinton impeachment many Senators had no doubt he committed the acts, the question as always was should he be removed from office for the offenses for which he has been impeached.

Why else would they have a trial

I have already clealy stated the reason as stated in the constitution, I will not keep repeating myself.

of any sort if they were supposed to rely upon the determination by the House?

The House doesn't determine if he should be removed, the Senate does and their judgement is limited to that question alone by the constitution.

If the person is not guilt obviously they will not impose punishment.

They don't impose punishment as I have already noted, that is left to the courts. They decide if he should be removed from office. Their concern is not the President but the country and the government.

I agree they said what they said; a third possibility is that whether they thought Clinton was guilty or not of the charges conviction was not warranted, and so did not feel it necessary to explore the issue of guilt.

I thought trials were suppose to be imparital, that jurys were suppose to go in without any prejudice or preconcieved notions as to guilty or innocence? This is preciesly why the analogies to criminal trials or that the Senate's primary function was to decide if he committed the acts falls on it's face. Many Senators had already made up their minds.

Do you know how many Senators actually went to the evidence room that had been set up and read the evidence?

 

[Iriemon]

Do you know how many Senators actually went to the evidence room that had been set up and read the evidence?

No, how many?

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Do you know how many Senators actually went to the evidence room that had been set up and read the evidence?

No, how many?

0