Right but the rules for proof and the standard for proof are not those of a criminal case.
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet @JamesSurowiecki
The definition of crime in the Constitution for impeachment is not the same as a legal trial. Federalist No. 65 (Alexander Hamilton) says that impeachable offenses “proceed from the misconduct of public men … from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @joe_selvaggio @HeerJeet
Again, this has nothing to do with the definition of "crime." It has to do with the question of how the alleged crimes for which the president has been impeached should be adjudicated.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JamesSurowiecki @joe_selvaggio
As per the constitution, they should be adjudicated by the rules the Senate sets. There is no requirement that these rules mimic those of a criminal trial in a legal court.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet @joe_selvaggio
Yes - there's no requirement. But it's perfectly reasonable for Trump's lawyers to say the absence of such a requirement means that the Senate rules are unfair to the defendant in the trial.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
No - of course they were going to claim it. My point is that the Dems have gone to great lengths to try to show that their support for conviction is based on Trump's crimes, not their political views. Saying it's a "political trial" makes that whole effort seem irrelevant.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
This is only the case if you think politics is inherently suspect. It's a political trial because it is taking place in a political arena and adjudicated by politicians. Politics is a necessary part of life and not worse than allegedly non political courts.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
It's so much worse to have the victims of an alleged crime - and, on the other side, arguable co-conspirators in that crime - weighing in on whether that crime was committed than the way it would work in a normal trial.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @JamesSurowiecki @HeerJeet and
And of course politics is inherently suspect when you're talking about literally prohibiting voters from voting for a candidate in the future. The only argument for that being a reasonable remedy is if the judgment on Trump is a dispassionate, apolitical one.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
I'm sorry but there is no way that the Senate deciding a president or former president has acted in a way that disqualifies him from federal office can ever be apolitical. Politics -- elected officials deciding on common good -- is a good thing & liberals shouldn't fear it.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.