Elizabeth Warren says she's seen enough evidence to convict Trump in Senate impeachment trial

[Baclava]

Hell yeah! I want a candidate not afraid to take a stand!


LOS ANGELES (FOX 11) - Senator Elizabeth Warren said that she’s ready to vote to remove Donald Trump from the presidency.

If the President is Impeached by Democrats in the House, there would then be a trial in the Senate. Warren, like several other Democratic senators seeking the presidency, would have a vote.

FOX 11 News anchor & political reporter Elex Michaelson asked her" “have you seen enough evidence to convict Donald Trump and remove him from office?”

Warren replied simply, “yes!”

Michaelson followed up: “So you would vote right now to remove him?”

“The evidence is clear. When Donald Trump released the transcript when he solicited a foreign government’s interference in the 2020 elections, he broke the law, and he did that in the context of already having interfered with an investigation into the 2016 election and Russia being invited to interfere in an election,” Warren said.

She added “He has made it clear that he thinks the law doesn’t apply to him, and that the point of the federal government is to put whatever resources are needed at his disposal to protect himself politically and financially. That is not right. What he has done is commit impeachable offenses and he should be Impeached.”

Michaelson asked a similar question to several other candidates at the SEIU presidential candidate forum in Downtown Los Angeles. None answered it directly.

https://www.foxla.com/news/sen-warren-says-shed-vote-to-convict-president-trump

[alittlelark]

1. I LOVE Warren, but she shouldn't say that.

She, as a senator will be judging impeachment in the Senate. The accused is supposed to be presumed innocent during the trial. Even though it is patently clear that tRump is guilty as sin.

[Baclava]

2. The hell with that, she can damn well speak her mind on any issue, she is a citizen too

Dream big!

Fight hard!

[Mme. Defarge]

3. Damn straight!

[central scrutinizer]

5. Spot on

Bad thing to say.

[caraher]

6. I'm not sure the "presumed innocent" standard applies to impeachment

It appears to be a legal gray area.

The Constitution gives the United States Senate the responsibility for trying
impeachments, but does not address the standard of proof that is to be used in such
trials. This report concludes that an examination of the constitutional language, history,
and the work of legal scholars provides no definitive answer to the question of what
standard is to be applied. In the final analysis the question is one which historically has
been answered by individual Senators guided by their own consciences.

The only penalty a Senate conviction applies is removal from office, so the stakes are in some sense lower than in criminal proceedings in which the defendant might be imprisoned or executed. An impeached president could be indicted and tried in the courts, where the usual standard would apply.

Here's an excerpt from an article arguing against the "presumption of innocence" applying to impeachment:

Politicians who come under fire for abusing their office do not get a legal presumption of innocence. People only get the presumption of innocence if they are indicted and facing trial for crimes. The presumption of innocence is for criminal defendants, not presidents.

Don’t just take my word for it, consider what the U.S. Supreme Court has had to say: “The presumption of innocence, although not articulated in the Constitution, is a basic component of a fair trial under our system of criminal justice.” The Supreme Court treats it as “an element of due process.”

Due process is a constitutional guarantee that applies when the government tries to take away someone’s life, liberty, or property. Before the government can throw you in jail, for example, you get to be notified of the charges against you and you get a hearing to explain why the government shouldn’t take away your liberty. (There are other nuances to due process, but that’s the gist of it.)

Because of DOJ’s decades-old internal policy directing its prosecutors not to indict sitting presidents, when it comes to the Mueller report, Trump’s liberty under the due process clause is totally beside the point. It won’t kick in unless and until he is charged with a crime as a private citizen. If that happens, the presumption of innocence means that the government will bear the burden of proving at trial that he committed a crime.

[alittlelark]

7. I love DU because of posters like u that get to the meat of it!!

[Thomas Hurt]

8. I don't think there is a burden of proof in an impeachment...unfortunately

I think it is whatever the individual Senators wants to believe.

[wasupaloopa]

4. Fine, how many republicans can you bring to the party. I doesn't matter if ALL the Dems are ready

to convict trump.

[dweller]

10. and once again ...

Last edited Sun Oct 6, 2019, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)

IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY REPUBLICANS ARE FOR
IMPEACHMENT AT THE BEGINNING OF IMPEACHMENT..
what matters is how many AMERICANS are for it at the END !

✌🏼

[wasupaloopa]

12. And once again! What will that do to trump?

Nothing until Nov 2020 if we win.

[tclambert]

11. Jeff Flake said 35 Republican Senators would vote to convict Trump IF

they could vote in secret. If they have to publicly acknowledge how they vote on impeachment, well, the cowardice will come out.

[Skittles]

9. so has everyone

[BeyondGeography]

13. Save the other three candidates who were asked the same question apparently

[Skittles]

14. WE have seen enough evididence

the man has been a walking impeachable offense from day one