Impeachment

Biden is sleazy and not all there at times, but............Does that mean that President Bonespurs is not a boorish jerk who tried to make political hay by threatening to with hold aid to the Ukraine? Or that his secretary of state was incorrect in characterizing him as a buffoon? Or that he is the sleaziest president since Santa Anna was our president?

I can't abide any of the democrats but I fail to see how you guys can continue to defend this sack. He's Jerry Springer with less class.
 
huisache said:
Biden is sleazy and not all there at times, but............Does that mean that President Bonespurs is not a boorish jerk who tried to make political hay by threatening to with hold aid to the Ukraine? Or that his secretary of state was incorrect in characterizing him as a buffoon? Or that he is the sleaziest president since Santa Anna was our president?

I can't abide any of the democrats but I fail to see how you guys can continue to defend this sack. He's Jerry Springer with less class.
Click to expand...
As long as it is directed at the swamp and not the American people, I don’t have a problem with Trump.
 
Even Murkowski is sounding rational today -- dont know where she has been hiding this version of herself -- but it sticks around

“The House made a decision that they didn’t want to slow things down by having to go through the courts, and yet now they’re basically saying you guys need to go through the courts. ‘We didn’t but we need you to. That’s kind of where we are.”​
 
theiioftx said:
I’m not an attorney, so why are prosecutors in this trial allowed to lie and misstate testimony from the impeachment process at trial?
Click to expand...

One more thing is that I do not think the rules the Senate agreed upon allow for objection. Which is something else that makes this not a real trial (and makes Roberts' role even more like a log). Because most of what Schiff said, at least the part I saw, was objectionable.
 
There is absolutely no defensible justification for the Democratic position on refusing to subpoena witnesses in the House but demanding it in the Senate. It doesn't make much political sense either. They gained nothing in this.
 
Mr. Deez said:
There is absolutely no defensible justification for the Democratic position on refusing to subpoena witnesses in the House but demanding it in the Senate. It doesn't make much political sense either. They gained nothing in this.
Click to expand...

And the in charge Republican Senate allows it to happen, as usual. Guess they think maybe this time, this time!, the media will look favorably on them for allowing the House to try to dictate rules.
 
Mr. Deez said:
There is absolutely no defensible justification for the Democratic position on refusing to subpoena witnesses in the House but demanding it in the Senate. It doesn't make much political sense either. They gained nothing in this.
Click to expand...
I agree that they should have tried to get them to come. They were going to have to go through a protracted legal process to fight it with the Supreme Court being the final decider and we all know how they would have ruled - much like the Senate is going to rule on every move of this thing.
 
What the hell is going on?

Florida
School bus kid wearing a mega hat gets jumped on by group of kids.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...on-school-bus-for-wearing-trump-2020-hat/amp/
Florida
Man killed his his boss over his support of Trump in argument.
Man killed Trump-supporting boss after political argument then draped American flag next to his body, Florida police say
Pennsylvania
man choked his girl friend when she asked to change the channel while watching in anger of the senate impeachment trial. Trump impeachment trial on TV leads to domestic assault in York County, police say

the left is out of control
 
Joe Fan said:
You will want to be sitting down for this, just to be safe
But, believe it or not, the NYT allowed a sane person to write an article -- what a concept!
Opinion | Trump Acts Like a Politician. That’s Not an Impeachable Offense.
Click to expand...

Josh Blackman (who is a local guy btw) wrote about some of the reaction to his article in the NYT

EPAM5GaXUAA_1Po.png
 
Joe Fan said:
Even Murkowski is sounding rational today -- dont know where she has been hiding this version of herself -- but it sticks around

“The House made a decision that they didn’t want to slow things down by having to go through the courts, and yet now they’re basically saying you guys need to go through the courts. ‘We didn’t but we need you to. That’s kind of where we are.”​
Click to expand...

Murk and Collins apparently weren't impressed with Nadler's approach by saying Repub senators were complicit in a cover up for bad orange man. Collins mentioned here, Murk elsewhere

Trump lawyer says Democrats ‘opened the door’ for trial to be about Biden – Updates

Collins sent a note to Roberts before admonishment
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she was "stunned" by remarks given by House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler at the start of the trial, where he accused senators of being complicit in a cover-up if they shot down measures to hear from additional witnesses.

Collins, a key moderate who Democrats are hoping to convince that more witnesses should be heard from during the trial, said the remarks caused her to write a note to Chief Justice John Roberts, asking whether the Senate's rules had been violated.

"I was stunned by Congressman Nadler’s approach, and it reminded me that if we were in a normal debate in the Senate, that the rule will be invoked to strike the words of the Senator, for impugning another Senator in this case," she explained in an interview with Politico, remarks that were confirmed by her office. "So, I did write a note raising the issue of whether there had been a violation of the rules of the Senate."

Collins said she gave the note to Laura Dove, the secretary for the Senate majority. Shortly after the note was delivered, Roberts admonished both house managers and Trump's counsel for the testy back-and-forth. "I was glad that he did," Collins said.
 
OUBubba said:
I agree that they should have tried to get them to come. They were going to have to go through a protracted legal process to fight it with the Supreme Court being the final decider and we all know how they would have ruled - much like the Senate is going to rule on every move of this thing.
Click to expand...

A few points on that. First, yes, they'd have to go to court, and yes there'd be appeals, but it wouldn't have to take that long. When we're talking about very high-profile matters that heavily impact the other branches, the courts can move very fast. The US Supreme Court decided US v. Nixon in about two months. Bush v. Gore got through the Florida state court and the US Supreme Court in about six weeks. Had Pelosi taken the subpoenas to court back in October (what any competent leader would have done), we'd likely have the matter resolved by now.

Second, it's not preordained in the courts. That's a political narrative being pushed to crap on the legitimacy of any decision that isn't removal. There's no reason to assume that Chief Justice Roberts would have denied access to the witness Democrats wanted to call. He may have limited the scope of their testimony beyond what's necessary (which the law would require), but he wouldn't have denied access to them.
 
Last edited:
horninchicago said:
And the in charge Republican Senate allows it to happen, as usual. Guess they think maybe this time, this time!, the media will look favorably on them for allowing the House to try to dictate rules.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with witnesses being called. I'm all for getting to the bottom of what occurred. It's the statesman-like thing to do. They won't get credit for it, but it is the right thing to do. However, that doesn't make the House's dereliction and malpractice any less of a disgrace.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I don't have a problem with witnesses being called. I'm all for getting to the bottom of what occurred. It's the statesman-like thing to do. They won't get credit for it, but it is the right thing to do. However, that doesn't make the House's dereliction and malpractice any less of a disgrace.
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is being the nice statesman, the Republicans never win over any media and get good press for doing the right thing. So, screw it, tell the House managers to F off like the House did in its proceedings. Liberals and the MSM are against the Rs no matter what, anyway.
 
horninchicago said:
What I'm saying is being the nice statesman, the Republicans never win over any media and get good press for doing the right thing. So, screw it, tell the House managers to F off like the House did in its proceedings. Liberals and the MSM are against the Rs no matter what, anyway.
Click to expand...
You would think Republicans would have learned this at some point over the last 50+ years. I also expect McConnell to cave. He's located his backbone since Trump became president. But he does not seem comfortable having a spine.
 
Romney and Lamar Alexander are the most despicable RINO’s left. Pretend to be conservative when they are not. At least Murkowski and Collins are consistent.
 
horninchicago said:
What I'm saying is being the nice statesman, the Republicans never win over any media and get good press for doing the right thing. So, screw it, tell the House managers to F off like the House did in its proceedings. Liberals and the MSM are against the Rs no matter what, anyway.
Click to expand...

Being a statesman means doing the right thing just because it's the right thing and not caring if the media gives you credit for it. And you're right. They won't.

By the way, it leaves a lot of room to still make Democrats uncomfortable. Obviously, Hunter Biden and whistleblower can be called to testify. If the whistleblower testifies if improper coordination with Adam Schiff, he can be called as well. It doesn't have to mean taking it in the shorts.

You also don't have to call every witness the Democrats want. For example, the Democrats will want to call all the House witnesses who righteously badmouthed Trump. Those who don't have personal knowledge of relevant information (which is pretty much all of them except Gordon Sondland) don't have to be called.
 
Considering what a complete fail this has been for the Dems, I don't think it's a great idea to call any witnesses such as Biden or his son. That has a chance of backfiring and making Biden appear sympathetic. The damage has already been done to Biden and the questions of corruption will follow him throughout the rest of his campaign.

I think the best option is to proceed directly to a vote on removal from office. The Impeachment managers have not made their case so the Senate Republicans can say they don't want to waste more time and it's time to get back to real work for the country.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Being a statesman means doing the right thing just because it's the right thing and not caring if the media gives you credit for it. And you're right. They won't.

By the way, it leaves a lot of room to still make Democrats uncomfortable. Obviously, Hunter Biden and whistleblower can be called to testify. If the whistleblower testifies if improper coordination with Adam Schiff, he can be called as well. It doesn't have to mean taking it in the shorts.

You also don't have to call every witness the Democrats want. For example, the Democrats will want to call all the House witnesses who righteously badmouthed Trump. Those who don't have personal knowledge of relevant information (which is pretty much all of them except Gordon Sondland) don't have to be called.
Click to expand...
I get all that. I just think the Rs are spineless and won't call any of them. Lindsey Graham told Hannity that pretty much last night. Thinks it's a waste of time and the trial should be over next week, anyway.
 
horninchicago said:
I get all that. I just think the Rs are spineless and won't call any of them. Lindsey Graham told Hannity that pretty much last night. Thinks it's a waste of time and the trial should be over next week, anyway.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, it makes me wonder if some of these Republicans fear potential witnesses (on both sides) might have dirt on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top