HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » This is a very basic defi...

Thu Jan 9, 2020, 11:28 PM

This is a very basic definition of trial.

A formal examination of evidence before a judge, and typically before a jury, in order to decide guilt in a case of criminal or civil proceedings.

Without an opportunity for witnesses or evidence how can one call that a trial. The media should stop calling it a trial. Dems should stop calling it a trial too.

Mitch crying about the articles being held up is a joke. I have two words for that fucker,
Merrick Garland. When McTraitor mentions the Speaker holding the articles, the response should always be Merrick Garland.

21 replies, 761 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply This is a very basic definition of trial. (Original post)
onecaliberal Jan 2020 OP
UniteFightBack Jan 2020 #1
onecaliberal Jan 2020 #2
AncientGeezer Jan 2020 #3
onecaliberal Jan 2020 #4
AncientGeezer Jan 2020 #6
onecaliberal Jan 2020 #11
AncientGeezer Jan 2020 #15
coti Jan 2020 #5
AncientGeezer Jan 2020 #7
coti Jan 2020 #8
AncientGeezer Jan 2020 #9
coti Jan 2020 #10
onecaliberal Jan 2020 #12
AncientGeezer Jan 2020 #17
onecaliberal Jan 2020 #19
AncientGeezer Jan 2020 #20
AncientGeezer Jan 2020 #13
coti Jan 2020 #14
AncientGeezer Jan 2020 #16
coti Jan 2020 #21
onenote Jan 2020 #18

Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 12:14 AM

1. I said to my deplorable co worker what kind of trial has no witnesses??? I said I'll answer for you

 

a rigged one. And if Bolton testifies the dump presidency is over. He had nothing to say to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UniteFightBack (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 12:22 AM

2. What can they say. We all know most of them are perfectly aware

Of the criminality. They’re on board with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 02:36 PM

3. This relies on a false assumption...

 

That an impeachment trial is in any way similar to a criminal trial

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AncientGeezer (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 02:50 PM

4. Not really, the constitution calls the process a trial. Although, the senate makes the rules.

For anyone attempting to demonstrate or prove innocence, documentation and or witnesses are brought in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 02:57 PM

6. See......you've got this wrong....already.

 

"For anyone attempting to demonstrate or prove innocence"......That is NOT the standard. NO defendant has to prove innocence...the prosecution has to prove guilt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AncientGeezer (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 03:36 PM

11. The whole reason for a trial is to find fact. If you're not interesting In getting at the truth you

Don’t need no stinking witness or documents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 04:01 PM

15. NO..the reason for a trial is to PROVE the facts already in evidence. How do you not know that?

 

No prosecutor goes to trial without the evidence...the "facts" gathered in the investigation... and no Judge says...let's do wiretaps now that the defendant is here being tried. Judicial malpractice if that happened.
The House was the investigative body for the Articles....they have to prove guilt just like when the R's went after President Clinton..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AncientGeezer (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 02:52 PM

5. No, it doesn't. It considers any trial a forum for evaluation of truth. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coti (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 03:05 PM

7. Source that in the Constitution....re: the impeachment sections..

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AncientGeezer (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 03:08 PM

8. It's the English language. Would you take a dictionary? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coti (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 03:18 PM

9. The Constitution will do...I have mine right here and know it inside out

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AncientGeezer (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 03:24 PM

10. The Constitution is written in English, I think you're going to have to refer back.

By the way, the OP already gave you the dictionary definition of a trial right there in his post. That's just what it is, the same as 2 + 2 = 4.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coti (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 03:37 PM

12. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 04:30 PM

17. Problem is you are incorrect....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AncientGeezer (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 05:18 PM

19. Says you. You're welcome to think whatever you'd like. It doesn't mean you're correct.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #19)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 05:26 PM

20. You said...and I quote...

 

Last edited Fri Jan 10, 2020, 07:35 PM - Edit history (1)

"For anyone attempting to demonstrate or prove innocence, documentation and or witnesses are brought in."

That's not how trials work...no defendant has to prove innocence...I ask again...how do you not know that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coti (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 03:45 PM

13. The OP also said this....

 

"For anyone attempting to demonstrate or prove innocence, documentation and or witnesses are brought in."

In what court does a defendant have to prove innocence? Your dictionary must be able to give that answer... right.
It's NOT up to a defendant to prove innocence....it's up to the prosecution to prove guilt......you know that... right?

You are trying to conflate a criminal or civil trial with the impeachment process... it's apples to cactus different...you know that...right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AncientGeezer (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 03:50 PM

14. Defendants try to prove innocence all the time. You're getting confused.

He could have just as easily said "For anyone attempting to demonstrate or prove guilt, documentation and/or witnesses are brought in." The key words aren't "innocence" or "guilt" in those sentences, they are "demonstrate" and "prove." The point is, to prove or demonstrate an (a posteriori) proposition, you need some kind of evidence- which is the whole purpose of a trial. You just didn't understand his point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coti (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 04:28 PM

16. Trying too hard....you summed it up here and you didn't know it.

 

"The point is, to prove or demonstrate an (a posteriori) proposition, you need some kind of evidence- which is the whole purpose of a trial."

You DO NOT go to trial without the evidence, the "facts".......no prosecutor goes into a court room and says.."Judge we have our perp in front of a jury and you.. Your Honor...now we want to investigate the crime we are accusing him/her of... so can you give us what we didn't get before we got here? We have no evidence to convict but the trial is where we get the evidence....you'll let us investigate now with the defendant in court "

That's basically what you're saying...that a trial is an investigative body....but it's Not.
The trial is to decide the facts/evidence presented....by those charging.
NO prosecutor worth a crap goes to trial without a solid case backed by evidence...they don't go fishing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AncientGeezer (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 09:31 PM

21. Now you're deliberately TRYING to confuse and contort.

Obviously, you bring the evidence to the trial to be evaluated, you don't investigate there. All totally beside the point. You should just be quiet at this point, you're arguing dishonestly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 10, 2020, 04:36 PM

18. The Supreme Court has addressed the meaning of "try" in the Constitution

concluding, in Nixon v. US (1993), "that "try" lacks sufficient precision to afford any judicially manageable standard of review in light of older and modern dictionary definitions"

More specifically, the SCOTUS concluded that the Constitution's use of the term "try" did not preclude the Senate from using a process in which witnesses were heard and examined by a committee which then reported to the rest of the Senate. Obviously, in a typical "trial" it would not be proper to create a subcommittee of jurors to hear the witnesses and then report to the rest of the jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread