Impeachment
- Thread starter mchammer
- Start date
Well, gosh gee willickers, Wally, she just wants to make sure the Eddie Haskels in the Senate will be fair.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
But, but, but .... “Trump is an existential threat to the republic” right?
Truth is she is afraid of Cocaine Mitch (that name if funny, isnt it. They came up with it as an insult, but its turned into something different). She doesnt want to give him the reins. Cocaine Mitch exists only to destroy Dems and replace their dreams with nightmares. He's going to turn their partisan witchhunt into a mockery and crush their hopes.
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Tucker Carlson on the upcoming spending bill that they passed while you were ot looking --
"Thousands of Liberians from Liberia living in this country will get a special pathway to citizenship. Why? How did that happen? Don't ask. It was never debated. You had no idea it was evening happening. This is your country. You didnt know."
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
What to do about Nancy's recalcitrance with her articles?
Trump could immediately seek writ of mandamus from the SCOTUS to force the articles to be delivered. Impeachment is a Constitutional process. And the Const mandates due process.
The Constitution specifically provides for disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches to be resolved with certainty by the Judicial Branch. Thus the SCOTUS would have to act here. The issue would not be about Trump but rather about the Constitution itself -- as the chaos created by this dispute between these two branches of Govt threatens the very foundation of the country. The issue is certainly ripe and the issue would be purely about process. If the SCOTUS refused to act, then none of our Constitutionally created Branches of Govt could fulfill its required duties. Sp the Court would have a duty to rule under these circumstances as the Constitution demands a resolution.
Trump could immediately seek writ of mandamus from the SCOTUS to force the articles to be delivered. Impeachment is a Constitutional process. And the Const mandates due process.
The Constitution specifically provides for disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches to be resolved with certainty by the Judicial Branch. Thus the SCOTUS would have to act here. The issue would not be about Trump but rather about the Constitution itself -- as the chaos created by this dispute between these two branches of Govt threatens the very foundation of the country. The issue is certainly ripe and the issue would be purely about process. If the SCOTUS refused to act, then none of our Constitutionally created Branches of Govt could fulfill its required duties. Sp the Court would have a duty to rule under these circumstances as the Constitution demands a resolution.
Evidently they can dismiss because the prosecutors (House) have not presented their case?
Mitch McConnell:
“House Democrats want to create new rules for this president because they feel uniquely enraged,” he argued. “This is by far the thinnest basis for any House-passed presidential impeachment in American history.” He condemned it as “the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history.”
McConnell noted that Pelosi is considering not sending the articles of impeachment over to the U.S. Senate. After rushing through the process of impeachment in the House, “they’re content to sit on their hands.”
“The Democrats’ own actions concede their allegations are unproven. The allegations are not just unproven, they’re also legally incoherent,” he said. “If the Senate blesses this historically low bar, we will invite the impeachment of every single future president.” . . .
McConnell dismissed both articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
The first article “does not even purport to allege any actual claim,” instead using “the vague phrase ‘abuse of power’ to impugn the president’s action in a general way.” He argued that this followed exactly what the Founders warned against — impeachment for maladministration.
The second article involves Trump’s supposed obstruction by going to the courts to challenge congressional subpoenas.
“It’s not a constitutional crisis for a House to want more information than a president wants to give up,” McConnell explained. Indeed, this kind of legal battle is “a routine occurrence.” In the case of Bill Clinton, Congress went to the courts.
“This takes time, it’s inconvenient. That’s actually the point. Due process is not meant to maximize the convenience of the prosecutor, it’s meant to protect the accused,” the Republican leader insisted. “Fourteen months of hearings for Richard Nixon; years of investigation for Bill Clinton; twelve weeks for Donald Trump.”
Mitch McConnell:
“House Democrats want to create new rules for this president because they feel uniquely enraged,” he argued. “This is by far the thinnest basis for any House-passed presidential impeachment in American history.” He condemned it as “the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history.”
McConnell noted that Pelosi is considering not sending the articles of impeachment over to the U.S. Senate. After rushing through the process of impeachment in the House, “they’re content to sit on their hands.”
“The Democrats’ own actions concede their allegations are unproven. The allegations are not just unproven, they’re also legally incoherent,” he said. “If the Senate blesses this historically low bar, we will invite the impeachment of every single future president.” . . .
McConnell dismissed both articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
The first article “does not even purport to allege any actual claim,” instead using “the vague phrase ‘abuse of power’ to impugn the president’s action in a general way.” He argued that this followed exactly what the Founders warned against — impeachment for maladministration.
The second article involves Trump’s supposed obstruction by going to the courts to challenge congressional subpoenas.
“It’s not a constitutional crisis for a House to want more information than a president wants to give up,” McConnell explained. Indeed, this kind of legal battle is “a routine occurrence.” In the case of Bill Clinton, Congress went to the courts.
“This takes time, it’s inconvenient. That’s actually the point. Due process is not meant to maximize the convenience of the prosecutor, it’s meant to protect the accused,” the Republican leader insisted. “Fourteen months of hearings for Richard Nixon; years of investigation for Bill Clinton; twelve weeks for Donald Trump.”
Last edited:
Horn2RunAgain
2,500+ Posts
We're all entitled to our beliefs. I think the people you mentioned, their representatives are pulling her strings, not the other way around. She's not in complete control, hasn't been since she took the gavel back
After watching her body language etc, listening to older dems on CNN and FOX, etc that were close to her in the past, I don't believe she wanted to go thru with this. The case was weak and she knew it. She was pressured into going forth w/ impeachment by the younger crowd
To strengthen my personal belief on this
1- she hasn't sent this farce to the senate, she knows it's a weak case. Repubs will strike it down and embarrass the House in the process of doing so
2- Check out the look on her face after the vote was finalized.... Younger dems screamed in joy, Pelosi, still at the podium, stared them down as if to say 'I SAID THIS WAS A *SOLEMN* MOMENT, like a mom would look at a pre schooler for acting out of order.
She's a kindergarten teacher that never was in control to begin with. The hole she dug was taking the job to begin with. If she was concerned with her legacy she'd have stepped down late this summer knowing this shitshow wasn't going to turn out well. Find a way to save face and leave.
She's simply not on board with THIS impeachment although she'd love to be, given a real crime committed. Problem is, this will hurt her party and she knows it. She's looking for an answered prayer from above - A major fk up by DJT between now and November that she can jump on. Without that, her legacy is crap
What was the process to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate when Clinton was impeached?
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
The Republicans in the House for Clinton, of course, bent over backwards to ensure Clinton enjoyed full due process.
OK, so there is another possibility to my writ of mandamus idea above. The Senate could now simply take the position that the House has concluded its Constitutionally-mandated role. The Constitution has nothing specific about rules, managers or delivery methods. So once the House votes to impeach, they are done. The Senate can thus assume it is now in full control.
The Senate sets its proceedings timetable and begins the trial phase. If the Dems dont show up, then it's directed verdict, and case dismissed. Pelosi/the House Ds have no procedural role in this next phase.
That's what I thought. Mitch can just tell Wicked to f off.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Remember Schiff's prissy witness from Harvard Law? Noah Feldman says --
"If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all."
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Perhaps ...
or ... the vote to acquit will be made almost immediately (which is the right decision) ... but Mitch will "defend the fort" ... there'll be no incarcerations of former administration officials, FBI, CIA as there should be.
It'll go away ...
Shoot ... He won't even make use of the opportunity to derail 1/2 dozen democrat campaigns.
What a complete cluster! Pelosi marched herself into a predicable no-win situation and now wants to pretend it never happened. I am almost embarrassed for her.
I am sure the key word there is “almost” because none of this is an accident, she and all her co-conspirators knew what they were doing. I’m telling you, again, this is a desperate ultimate attempt to do anything possible to defeat him in 2020. The Congress is (both houses) is so corrupt it’s disgusting. We’ve allowed it and it’s so rampant the public may finally be sick of it. Guess we’ll see but I am not optimistic it can be overcome even if the populous opens their eyes. The popularity of AOC et. al, among the young frightens me.
The whole "Cocaine Mitch" thing might be the funniest joke about Congress. Obviously in terms of appearance and demeanor, he's a big dork - about the last guy you'd think was involved in cocaine on any level. Because of that, he doesn't have to issue some big, righteous denial or get mad about it. He can just laugh it off and even exploit it a little. Link.
LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
You are carrying Texags political water.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
