Impeachment

OUBubba said:
[insert insult that would get me blocked] Democrats are Christians as well. I've taught middle school Sunday School. I was our church Treasurer at one time. I ran the slide show weekly. I picked up the donuts weekly (the worst!). Just because I'm a Democrat does not mean I can't be a Christian. And, even though our current president claims to be the most Christian president ever elected.....And, just because you're a Republican it doesn't mean you're a Christian. Jesus H...
Click to expand...
I think this is why Longest Horns post is so bad. Trying to stereotype all Christians as Evangelicals and all Evangelicals as bad people seems to be his MO.
 
Last edited:
theiioftx said:
I think this is why Longest Horns post is so bad. Trying to stereotype all Christians as Evangelicals and all Evangelicals as bad people seems to be is MO.
Click to expand...

From what I gather LongestHorn seems to be a miserable person that delights in trying to make others as miserable as he is.
 
"The whistleblower" (purportedly)

EMR9XkSW4AMuslL
 
Mr. Deez said:
I really don't understand why they care. If she doesn't send them, then take it as an admission of a weak case (which it clearly is) and just move on.
Click to expand...

They have no choice but to care, even if they do not really care. Mitch had already blocked off 6 weeks of Senate time
 
Joe Fan said:
They have no choice but to care, even if they do not really care. Mitch had already blocked off 6 weeks of Senate time
Click to expand...

I'd change the schedule and start taking up politically popular legislation. If he doesn't feel like he can do that, then I'd set the trial and invite the House to show up with the articles. If they no-show, then I'd make motion to dismiss for want of prosecution.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'd set the trial and invite the House to show up with the articles. If they no-show, then I'd make motion to dismiss for want of prosecution.
Click to expand...
That would be a great strategy. I would also publicly state that the Senate will not be negotiating the rules as they will follow the previous rules from Clinton's trial. Put Nancy in another no win position. If she sends the articles then she caved to pressure. If she doesn't send the articles then the case is summarily dismissed and Trump will claim he was never actually impeached.

I'm just not sure that it is Constitutional to act on an impeachment before the articles are formally sent to the Senate.
 
UTChE96 said:
I'm just not sure that it is Constitutional to act on an impeachment before the articles are formally sent to the Senate.
Click to expand...

I believe that it is, because the Constitution is silent on that point and because the judiciary has been extremely deferential to Congress when it comes to impeachment procedure. The Constitution doesn't say anything about what that actually looks like. There's no mention of articles, what they can or cannot say, or if they have to be formally sent to the Senate.
 
Yeah, nobody really knows + this is one of those issues where the federal courts should simply stay out -- refuse to hear it. Leaving it up to our politicians to decide. What could go wrong?
 
Looks like Nancy has painted herself and the House Dems into a corner. No way she gets the Senate to agree to her proposed rules (whatever they are) for the trial. And if she doesn't send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, there is no trial.
 
Looks like Nancy has painted herself and the House Dems into a corner.
Click to expand...

The only thing I can figure for her strategy that makes any sense is she will just hold on to them and hope that either more dirt comes out that damages Trump or he says or does something really bad to where she can get some GOP votes in the Senate, then she will send the stuff over.

However, if the Senate can just vote to acquit without the actual articles of impeachment and say the House failed to make their case, then it would seem that would mess up her strategy.
 
Phil Elliott said:
The only thing I can figure for her strategy that makes any sense is she will just hold on to them and hope that either more dirt comes out that damages Trump or he says or does something really bad to where she can get some GOP votes in the Senate, then she will send the stuff over.

However, if the Senate can just vote to acquit without the actual articles of impeachment and say the House failed to make their case, then it would seem that would mess up her strategy.
Click to expand...
Dems will target sympathetic GOP senators to vote for witnesses. Then we will have witnesses, and then Dems will pressure for impeachment.
 
mchammer said:
Dems will target sympathetic GOP senators to vote for witnesses. Then we will have witnesses, and then Dems will pressure for impeachment.
Click to expand...

I think this is the hope, and Cocaine Mitch hasn't closed the door on witnesses. What he's trying to do is hold opening statements, a period of written questions, and then let the Senate decide what witnesses, if any, to call. That is what was done in 1999 with bipartisan agreement. I think it pissed him off that the House is trying to direct the trial by exercising a leverage that it actually doesn't have. It would be like a prosecutor telling a judge that he won't show up for trial unless the judge promises to make a favorable ruling on something before being formally asked. A judge would ignore something like that and dismiss a case if the prosecutor no-showed. That's what McConnell should do.

Frankly, there's nothing inherently wrong with calling witnesses if the Senate wants to hear directly from them. That's entirely their call. What's stupid is the idea that the House would deliberately not call certain witnesses that at least plausibly could provide damning evidence because it didn't want to make the effort, impeach without evidence, and then demand that the Senate go find the evidence that they didn't care to secure but that they tacitly admit is essential (and therefore tacitly admit that they did a horrendously crappy job and that, despite all the sanctimony and phony "solemnity," they didn't take their own role seriously). That's a chicken **** move, and he shouldn't honor it or take it remotely seriously.

Let's also bear in mind that Cocaine Mitch doesn't have any more authority on getting the testimony than the House had during the impeachment inquiry. If he subpoenas Bolton, Mulvaney, etc., the same executive privilege issues that the House ignored will have to be dealt with.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
I think this is the hope, and Cocaine Mitch hasn't closed the door on witnesses. What he's trying to do is hold opening statements, a period of written questions, and then let the Senate decide what witnesses, if any, to call. That is what was done in 1999 with bipartisan agreement. I think it pissed him off that the House is trying to direct the trial by exercising a leverage that it actually doesn't have. It would be like a prosecutor telling a judge that he won't show up for trial unless the judge promises to make a favorable ruling on something before being formally asked. A judge would ignore something like that and dismiss a case if the prosecutor no-showed. That's what McConnell should do.

Frankly, there's nothing inherently wrong with calling witnesses if the Senate wants to hear directly from them. That's entirely their call. What's stupid is the idea that the House would deliberately not call certain witnesses that at least plausibly could provide damning evidence because it didn't want to make the effort, impeach without evidence, and then demand that the Senate go find the evidence that they didn't care to secure but that they tacitly admit is essential (and therefore tacitly admit that they did a horrendously crappy job and that, despite all the sanctimony and phony "solemnity," they didn't take their own role seriously). That's a chicken **** move, and he shouldn't honor it or take it remotely seriously.

Let's also bear in mind that Cocaine Mitch doesn't have any more authority on getting the testimony than the House had during the impeachment inquiry. If he subpoenas Bolton, Mulvaney, etc., the same executive privilege issues that the House ignored will have to be dealt with.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm confused. Is the Senate defending Trump or trying him? Are they "the judge?" Who defends the President in this instance? His own lawyer? It seems to me the Senate is a large jury. What else is their role? Is the Senate Majority leader supposed to be the prosecutor or an unbiased interested party who ensures what? The House reps get their day in court to present their case? Defend the President?

I'm trying to figure out how the players land if this were a regular civil trial.
 
The Canadians have managed to do what Pelosi could not - erase the Trump from history
The big one is the original - the small inset is the new CBA version
This guy says "1984" but maybe Stalinism is more accurate?
 
Joseph Stalin was infamous for having people removed from photos. Many times the people were previous allies that somehow got on his bad side. He erased their existence, first by having them killed but then by removing them from any records.
 
bystander said:
I guess I'm confused. Is the Senate defending Trump or trying him? Are they "the judge?" Who defends the President in this instance? His own lawyer? It seems to me the Senate is a large jury. What else is their role? Is the Senate Majority leader supposed to be the prosecutor or an unbiased interested party who ensures what? The House reps get their day in court to present their case? Defend the President?

I'm trying to figure out how the players land if this were a regular civil trial.
Click to expand...

During presidential removal proceedings, the Senate sits as a court with the Chief Justice (rather than the Vice President or President Pro Tempore) presiding. The senators play the role of jurors in the sense that they decide questions of fact (meaning what happened based on the evidence presented), but they also decide questions of law, including the ultimate question of whether or not the President's conduct constitutes an impeachable offense. The Chief Justice's role is to maintain order and enforce the rules that the Senate adopts.

Senators are not there to defend or prosecute the President. In fact, they take an oath to render, "impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws." The impeachment managers from the House will prosecute him. The President will be defended by his own attorneys.

Despite the oath, is anyone actually impartial? No.
 
Mr. Deez said:
During presidential removal proceedings, the Senate sits as a court with the Chief Justice (rather than the Vice President or President Pro Tempore) presiding. The senators play the role of jurors in the sense that they decide questions of fact (meaning what happened based on the evidence presented), but they also decide questions of law, including the ultimate question of whether or not the President's conduct constitutes an impeachable offense. The Chief Justice's role is to maintain order and enforce the rules that the Senate adopts.

Senators are not there to defend or prosecute the President. In fact, they take an oath to render, "impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws." The impeachment managers from the House will prosecute him. The President will be defended by his own attorneys.

Despite the oath, is anyone actually impartial? No.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that was a great summary. I'm not sure too many people understand the "process" if we can call it that.

And I agree; impartiality died a long time ago.
 
Joe Fan said:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Nasdaq just passed 9,000 for the first time ever
Click to expand...

That is an interesting fact of economic life. I've seen many Democrats cite statistics that supposedly indicate the stock market indices have cumulatively gone up higher when a Democrat is President than when a Republican is President. Of course, these stats do not allow for the time lag impact of Congressional policies/laws/bills etc. We do know that Obama is getting full credit for this rise by everyone on the Left so we won't see the stat bandied about because it was rooted in who was President at the time.

I don't really know what Obama's policies were other than the fact of quantitative easing, zero interest (or practically zero) rates and the doubling of the national debt. If that's all he did then anyone could do that. What credit is there to give? All he did was buy the current good times metrics then. There's really nothing for him to brag about but people are so desperate these days. Real analysis is abandoned for feel good cherry picked metrics.

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics."
 
Last edited:
UTChE96 said:
Isnt that the onesie wearing douchebag from the Obamacare ads?
Click to expand...

Perhaps being the whistleblower was his way of getting back at conservatives who made fun of him and his smug douchiness in the pajama boy ad. Lol.

In all seriousness, it's not the same guy. All these urban, hipster douches who think they know everything but can't even check the oil on their car just look the same. Frankly, it's because they pretty much are all the same, though they think they're free thinkers and "special."
 
Mr. Deez said:
think they know everything but can't even check the oil on their car
Click to expand...

that's a better standard than "bru, if yer gonna wear a beard, have personal tire-changing capability ... otherwise ... get a razor."

Though ... someone was telling me just the other day of an ICE-powered vehicle ... no oil dipstick. oil level was electronic. SMH. You know we're filthy stinking privileged if we are having as OEM standard, an electronic oil quantity reporting (not gauge) system.

Perhaps today is a great day for a sunrise burn of some petro in the '71 Vette ... with all it's booming glory and fuel/oil vapor scents
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top