Pro Republica The Insurrection website gathering information regarding behind the scenes rally/riot start, online postings and public information about the U.S. Capital Building Riot which occurred immediately post President Trump rally held 1/06/2021. Will post info of interest regarding the upcoming Impeachment Trial for our members discussion in this thread . Our Democracy still at stake. Karen
Caroline Wren, a Trump fundraiser, is listed as a “VIP Advisor” in a National Park Service permit for the Jan. 6th rally at the Ellipse. Text messages and a planning memo show the title downplays the active role she played in organizing the event.
This story contains videos that viewers may find disturbing.
Quote
ProPublica sifted through thousands of videos taken by Parler users to create an immersive, first-person view of the Capitol riot as experienced by those who were ther
The person presiding does little more than gavel in, keep time and gavel out. Any procedural questions are referred to the parliamentarian , and decisions about calling witnesses or allowing evidence are subject to vote, as they were in Trump's first impeachment trial.
No. He gets to rule on things such as calling witnesses and allowing evidence. His rulings can be overturned by a vote of the Senate.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
30 minutes ago, Beerman said:
Oh, I thought we were proceeding with this circus because he WAS president when he was impeached. LOL...this is too much?
Don't you think it's telling that Roberts wants no part of this? If he thought it was constitutional, I feel out of his sense of obligation to fulfill his duty, he would be there.
LOL
Trump was president when he incited a violent mob to attack the capitol and he was president when he was impeached. He is no longer president and therefore the chief justice is not required to preside over the Senate trial. Unlike Trump supporters, Roberts understands the language and the precedent.
Oh, I thought we were proceeding with this circus because he WAS president when he was impeached. LOL...this is too much?
Don't you think it's telling that Roberts wants no part of this? If he thought it was constitutional, I feel out of his sense of obligation to fulfill his duty, he would be there.
He wants no part of it because he's already been exposed to the controversy of Bush v Gore! He's a compromised person as is Kavanagh and Barrett. They are all connected and Roberts himself was nominated after helping Bush in Florida.
Trump is the tail that's wagging the dog(GOP) here. Trump’s followers, REMEMBER all those solicitations and donations to Trump? Who owns that information of those followers? That's a big stick to hold over everyone in the GOP!
Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.
Impeachment Managers have been presenting an organized cohesive presentation will be interesting to see Trumps lawyers response.
Interested in how the Republican Party will respond to this trial presentation--- hard to ignore truthful visual info being presented -- much of it a news junkie has seen live over past 6 months.
For example, if the presiding officer makes a ruling on the relevance of evidence proffered by either the House managers or counsel for the president, that ruling can be questioned by any senator and overruled by a simple majority vote (Rule VII). Unlike in an ordinary trial, there is no higher court to which such a senatorial judgment can be appealed. The Senate itself is the final authority on every procedural or evidentiary question.
So the presiding officer can make a ruling on evidence, but senators can challenge it. I just don't recall Chief Justice Roberts making any such ruling last year, but I guess its because the Republicans had a majority and were able to decide that no witnesses need be called.
Do you think witnesses should or should not testify at this trial?
For example, if the presiding officer makes a ruling on the relevance of evidence proffered by either the House managers or counsel for the president, that ruling can be questioned by any senator and overruled by a simple majority vote (Rule VII). Unlike in an ordinary trial, there is no higher court to which such a senatorial judgment can be appealed. The Senate itself is the final authority on every procedural or evidentiary question.
So the presiding officer can make a ruling on evidence, but senators can challenge it. I just don't recall Chief Justice Roberts making any such ruling last year, but I guess its because the Republicans had a majority and were able to decide that no witnesses need be called.
Do you think witnesses should or should not testify at this trial?
I've already said it's a sham and a waste of time. But, since that train has left the station, I think it will be amusing to see they have a whole lot of nothing.
For example, if the presiding officer makes a ruling on the relevance of evidence proffered by either the House managers or counsel for the president, that ruling can be questioned by any senator and overruled by a simple majority vote (Rule VII). Unlike in an ordinary trial, there is no higher court to which such a senatorial judgment can be appealed. The Senate itself is the final authority on every procedural or evidentiary question.
So the presiding officer can make a ruling on evidence, but senators can challenge it. I just don't recall Chief Justice Roberts making any such ruling last year, but I guess its because the Republicans had a majority and were able to decide that no witnesses need be called.
Do you think witnesses should or should not testify at this trial?
It can't be a trial without presenting evidence as via witnesses and challenging the evidence. Anything else is a sham. But this is an impeachment not a trial as in a court.
This is about keeping an incredible occurrence relevant and preventing republicans from sweeping it under the carpet as they always do. It's to demonstrate the level of hypocrisy that the GOP has stooped to and the gross negligence they attached to their oaths.
They are consummate liars and untrustworthy and unworthy of representing their constituents and the American people.
I've already said it's a sham and a waste of time. But, since that train has left the station, I think it will be amusing to see they have a whole lot of nothing.
So your apparent dismay that the most senior senator is the presiding officer is a strawman argument. Whether or not he is a member of the Democratic caucus, or a potential witness, the trial is a sham.
Desire as witness: Capital Police officers relating what rioters were chanting/stating : "Trump sent me here" along with their destructive actions.
That's the best they have? If so, better lower your expectations.
Thats called hearsay. Except for a few exceptions, of which I don't see any that would apply here, that kind of testimony wouldnt be allowed in a court if law. But, this is a theatrical production, so we may see it.
I've already said it's a sham and a waste of time. But, since that train has left the station, I think it will be amusing to see they have a whole lot of nothing.
Beerman, the same behaviors that you turn a blind eye to, will someday if not already, impact you!
Your views are a reflection of your character and what you are willing to tolerate in your life and just as a blind man is vulnerable, so to are ethically and morally challenged people.
You will continue to look the other way in your own life experiences, which will surely affect your judgment and therefore your choices.
Choices determines our outcomes in life! You are way too intelligent to say the things you do, so you are deliberately being provocative or you really believe that you are right. Both pathways have uncomfortable destinations!
Just observe Trump's posse and the myriad of ways he's screwed them over! Personally, I think you should continue down the road the way you are pointed. It's a free world and you are free to make your own decisions!
Even Trump's chickens are now coming home to roost!
Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.
2 hours ago, Beerman said:
Thats called hearsay. Except for a few exceptions, of which I don't see any that would apply here, that kind of testimony wouldnt be allowed in a court if law. But, this is a theatrical production, so we may see it.
Eyewitness testimony is the account a bystander or victim gives in the courtroom, describing what that person observed that occurred during the specific incident under investigation. This recollection is used as evidence to show what happened from a witness' point of view.
Police routinely take eyewitness statements that are presented at trial --along with eyewitness appearing in person. FORTY police officers injured, along with hundreds onsite -- can provide details along with police cameras views of events.
House Impeachment Officers presenting Capital security coverage today --rioters got within 58 steps of Senators.
Adding: Police camera coverage now being presented.
Beerman, BSN
4,428 Posts
No. He gets to rule on things such as calling witnesses and allowing evidence. His rulings can be overturned by a vote of the Senate.