Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 07-29-2019, 04:31 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
You said it was "extra-democratic." I explained why it wasn't. I gather you concede the point, since this is in no way a rebuttal.
It's certainly within the parameters of the constitution and it's part of the machinery of our republican form of government, but it can certainly be perceived by voters as extra-democratic, or reversing the outcome of an election. When Republicans attempted to remove Clinton from office, that was perceived as extra-democratic, which is also why the public didn't like it and part of the reason Republicans lost seats in the 1998 elections and why Newt Gingrich lost his speakership.

With any president you could probably find 30-40% of the country that didn't like the candidate and would be willing to impeach him/her. But for the most part, most voters would rather remove a sitting president through elections.
  #52  
Old 07-29-2019, 04:45 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I have no idea why people think that going from "oversight" to "impeachment" is going to suddenly make the public outraged when they could have been outraged by many of the things he said on the campaign trail in 2016.
1) Has anyone even noticed the all-but-nonexistent 'oversight' any more than they've noticed all the waste-of-time 'message bills'?

2) The point isn't outrage, any more than it was in the case of Nixon's impeachment. The point was then and is now: yes, this is very serious shit - too serious to just get mad over.

Stuff like what Trump said about Baltimore the other day - yeah, that was stuff to get mad about, but was far from an impeachable offense.

Remember when you knew you were in trouble with your parents when they yelled at you? And when you knew you were in far worse trouble when you'd done something bad, and they didn't yell at you, but just got really quietly serious when they sat you down?

Or maybe your parents weren't like that. But it's kinda like that. Impeachment is when we get really quietly serious, because the stuff he's done is past the point of yelling and outrage.
Quote:
I'm not saying never impeach, but I wouldn't bother unless it's something we haven't seen before.
All I can say is, I'm not impressed with your judgment.
  #53  
Old 07-29-2019, 04:53 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
It's certainly within the parameters of the constitution and it's part of the machinery of our republican form of government, but it can certainly be perceived by voters as extra-democratic, or reversing the outcome of an election. When Republicans attempted to remove Clinton from office, that was perceived as extra-democratic, which is also why the public didn't like it and part of the reason Republicans lost seats in the 1998 elections and why Newt Gingrich lost his speakership.
I doubt very many voters thought about it in those terms. While technically the GOP was impeaching Clinton for obstruction of justice, for lying about a blowjob, they put most of their PR effort into making it all about sleazy sex. And most people didn't think either the sleazy sex, or being cornered into lying about it, was reason for impeachment, that's why the GOP lost seats. And Gingrich lost his speakership because he'd been making whoopee on the side as well, which would have undermined their case if they'd kept him.
Quote:
With any president you could probably find 30-40% of the country that didn't like the candidate and would be willing to impeach him/her. But for the most part, most voters would rather remove a sitting president through elections.
Well yeah. The point is, Trump isn't a "for the most part" President. And don't worry, they'll still get the opportunity to remove him in 2020.
  #54  
Old 07-29-2019, 05:14 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
Ok.
  #55  
Old 07-29-2019, 10:27 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Should congressional majorities always do this when the president is a member of the opposition party? Just run various charges up the flagpole and see who's interested?

Just because they can do it doesn't mean they should.
If they Can, yeah, maybe they should. For instance, Obama was widely despised by members of the GOP base. They would have been happy to be rid of him. But what would their representatives have charged him with? Smoking a joint in High School? Good luck with that impeachment.

The Trump case is radically different. Trump is guilty, many times.
  #56  
Old 07-30-2019, 05:57 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
If they Can, yeah, maybe they should. For instance, Obama was widely despised by members of the GOP base. They would have been happy to be rid of him. But what would their representatives have charged him with? Smoking a joint in High School? Good luck with that impeachment.

The Trump case is radically different. Trump is guilty, many times.
Trump is definitely more vulnerable both on the 'possible actual crimes' front and on the 'violate various Constitutional provisions, such as the emoluments clause' front.

But that wouldn't have stopped the GOP from voting to impeach Obama, had that been the norm (and had they a majority in the house). "Disrespect for our military" (saluting while holding a cup in his hand); "disrespect for the office of the Presidency" (due to wearing a tan suit); "failure to uphold his oath of office" (due to playing golf too many times)------these are only some of the possible charges that the Republicans might have set down as articles of impeachment.

Ludicrously partisan? Ridiculously political?

Of course. Impeachment is an inherently political phenomenon. It's nothing to do with eternal truths or timeless expressions of Right and Wrong.

It's politics.
  #57  
Old 07-30-2019, 06:17 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 29,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
That’s the problem with a so-called “big tent” party. It’s not really a cohesive group. It’s an alliance of factions united to profit from being in political control.
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

Will Rogers
  #58  
Old 07-31-2019, 06:06 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
Rep. Al Green's impeachment vote was on the grounds of Trump's bigotry/racism and attacks on the Democratic congresswomen. Green specifically said it was separate from any impeachment that might arise from the Mueller report.
Interesting. You'll remember that a similar charge* was the first on the Senate voted on in the trial of Andrew Johnson and the House felt it was an assured conviction - but he was acquitted of the charge. So the standard is that being an ass towards Congress is not a high crime or misdemenor so please remember that Dems if Trump is acquitted of verbally attacking Congressmembers or Congress itself.


*The first charge voted on was disparaging Congress, not violating the Tenure of Office Act.
  #59  
Old 07-31-2019, 06:23 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I doubt very many voters thought about it in those terms. While technically the GOP was impeaching Clinton for obstruction of justice, for lying about a blowjob, they put most of their PR effort into making it all about sleazy sex. And most people didn't think either the sleazy sex, or being cornered into lying about it, was reason for impeachment, that's why the GOP lost seats.
Emphasis added

Clinton was not "cornered" into lying. He chose to commit perjury and straight out lied to the American people.
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #60  
Old 08-03-2019, 12:07 AM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,776
Speaker Pelosi has released a statement on the progress of the various House investigations. Here's what the committees are up to:
Quote:
• Last week, Jerry Nadler, Chair of Judiciary, took a significant step when he filed a petition to obtain the grand jury testimony underlying the Mueller report, for the House to ‘have access to all the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise its full Article I powers, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity — approval of articles of impeachment.’

• Elijah Cummings, Chair of Oversight and Reform, is winning in court in the Mazars case, seeking the President’s financial statements and reports prepared by his accountant to determine financial conflicts, violations of the Emoluments Clause, and the truthfulness of representations contained in the President’s statutorily required financial disclosure forms;

• Maxine Waters, Chair of Financial Services and Adam Schiff, Chair of Intelligence are winning in court in the Deutsche Bank case, seeking the President’s bank account records to assist with the Committees’ investigation of unsafe banking practices, including money laundering, illicit transactions and foreign investments;

• Richie Neal, Chair of Ways and Means, is pursuing the President’s tax returns to assist with the ongoing investigation of the IRS’s presidential tax audit program;

• Eliot Engel, Chair of Foreign Affairs, on another front, is investigating the Russia connection with hearings seeking the facts from the Trump-Putin meetings;

• In addition, last week, the House voted to reiterate its oversight authority, and ratified and affirmed the subpoenas already issued by the committees and any subpoenas to come. Responding to the subpoenas gives the President an opportunity to provide information that could exonerate him. If he has nothing to hide, he should cooperate with the subpoenas.
  #61  
Old 08-03-2019, 06:01 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
Speaker Pelosi has released a statement on the progress of the various House investigations. Here's what the committees are up to:
Many thanks for that run-down, which is impressive. "Holding Donald Trump to account" is progressing on many fronts, some of which do include the 'I' word as part of their rationale and underpinnings.

Of course that won't play well with the 'PELOSI AND THE DEMS ARE TOTAL COWARDS WHO ARE DOING NOTHING!!!1!!!!' advocates. So the list will probably be ignored by those folks.
  #62  
Old 08-03-2019, 08:39 PM
galen ubal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Many thanks for that run-down, which is impressive. "Holding Donald Trump to account" is progressing on many fronts, some of which do include the 'I' word as part of their rationale and underpinnings.

Of course that won't play well with the 'PELOSI AND THE DEMS ARE TOTAL COWARDS WHO ARE DOING NOTHING!!!1!!!!' advocates. So the list will probably be ignored by those folks.
I read the run-down.
I am one of those advocating impeachment.
I question your utter certainty that an impeachment inquiry will energize Trump's base more than the Democrat's base, and more effectively. I believe it would have the opposite effect.
Thus far, the Trump administration has ignored every one of the House's attempt to perform oversight. Subpoenas have been ignored, and the DOJ will not act on them. I don't see anything in the list above that isn't more of the same. An impeachment inquiry, at least, would increase the psychological pressure on Trump and his supporters, and hearten the democrats and other progressives who thus far have seen little but failure during this administration, save through the actions of the courts.
__________________
Salvator apiae.
  #63  
Old 08-03-2019, 10:56 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
I think impeachment's on the table once you can consistently get the polling north of 50% (preferably closer to 60%). No it won't result in his removal from office, but if we're gonna impeach at least get more than half the country on board with it and let the Repubs deal with their voters.

Last edited by asahi; 08-03-2019 at 10:57 PM.
  #64  
Old 08-04-2019, 10:55 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Emphasis added

Clinton was not "cornered" into lying. He chose to commit perjury and straight out lied to the American people.
No, I'm not going to watch a YouTube video that references an occasion when he spoke publicly and not under oath. That has nothing to do with perjury, duh.

ETA: And besides, I'm talking about how most of the public viewed it. Contemporaneous polling backs me up on that, not to mention the 1998 midterms which the GOP turned into a referendum on impeachment, and lost.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 08-04-2019 at 11:00 AM.
  #65  
Old 08-06-2019, 05:13 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
I'm curious to see how recent events might shape public opinion on impeachment. I suspect that Trump is quietly sustaining at least some political damage over his response to the shootings this weekend.
  #66  
Old 08-06-2019, 08:43 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think impeachment's on the table once you can consistently get the polling north of 50% (preferably closer to 60%). No it won't result in his removal from office, but if we're gonna impeach at least get more than half the country on board with it and let the Repubs deal with their voters.
Yes. It isn't likely to actually result in President Pence for even a brief period, not that that's a desirable goal anyway, but it does force the Regressives to either try to politically defend the guy from criminal charges during his re-election campaign, or somehow convince him not to run. And who has the standing with him, combined with the will, to do that? Ivanka?
  #67  
Old 08-06-2019, 09:40 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 663
I'm coming around to the slow-roll impeachment approach. Pelosi knows what she's doing.

Think about how the FBI investigation hurt Hillary in 2016 by convincing undecided voters her corruption made her just as bad as Trump. Now think about that FBI investigation times ten, with new revelations of Trump's iffy dealings popping up every week. Whether the oversight ever comes to an impeachment vote is almost beside the point.

Remember, the point isn't to convince the GOP base -- they'll always believe it's a witch hunt. The point is to motivate the undecideds to vote against the corrupt, self-enriching criminal. That's all it will take to win.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #68  
Old 08-06-2019, 09:48 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
It isn't just about Trump, but his enablers and excusers and before- and after-the-fact accomplices, IOW his entire party. All offices are involved in the party brand image. The slow-roll process forces them to either continue trying to do the impossible by defending him, or show some spine and lose their base. But keeping it going weakens GOP Senate and House and state candidates as well.
  #69  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:26 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
It isn't just about Trump, but his enablers and excusers and before- and after-the-fact accomplices, IOW his entire party. All offices are involved in the party brand image. The slow-roll process forces them to either continue trying to do the impossible by defending him, or show some spine and lose their base. But keeping it going weakens GOP Senate and House and state candidates as well.
Yep, that too.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #70  
Old 08-06-2019, 06:09 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
I read the run-down. I am one of those advocating impeachment. I question your utter certainty that an impeachment inquiry will energize Trump's base more than the Democrat's base, and more effectively. I believe it would have the opposite effect.
I think you may be defining "the Democrat's base" in a way that doesn't reflect reality. If you are assuming that the base is far-left and activist (and consequently focused on Impeach Now), that's not an accurate view. See, for example, this research published a couple of weeks ago. It found that only 31% of registered Democrats identify as "very liberal;" additionally:

Quote:
When it comes to impeachment, the very liberal are the most likely group to say they want to hear candidates talk about impeaching Donald Trump right now, though across all three groups, the more popular position is to focus on beating him in the 2020 election instead.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/analysi...cratic-voters/



Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
Thus far, the Trump administration has ignored every one of the House's attempt to perform oversight. Subpoenas have been ignored, and the DOJ will not act on them.
Your claim ignores the successes the House is racking up. From last May:

Quote:
A second federal judge has now rebuffed President Donald Trump's sweeping attempt to block House lawmakers from accessing his financial records, handing him another defeat in a fight that has infuriated the President and opened deep rifts with Democrats.

Judge Edgardo Ramos in New York on Wednesday refused to block subpoenas from the House Intelligence and Financial Services panels for Trump's financial records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One. It's the second such ruling against the President in three days.
... Earlier this week, Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, DC, said Trump's former accounting firm Mazars would have to comply with a subpoena from Congress. Trump's legal team appealed on Tuesday, and the parties have agreed on an expedited briefing and hearing schedule that awaits signoff from an appeals court judge.
... House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings told reporters the latest ruling "definitely" helps his committee's case with its subpoena to Mazars.
"We now have two opinions. I think we're going to have more," Cummings said. "Clearly I think the courts are going to uphold the rule of law."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/22/polit...ork/index.html


Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
An impeachment inquiry, at least, would increase the psychological pressure on Trump and his supporters, and hearten the democrats and other progressives who thus far have seen little but failure during this administration, save through the actions of the courts.
Well, that impeachment inquiry is already underway. (See below.)




Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think impeachment's on the table once you can consistently get the polling north of 50% (preferably closer to 60%). No it won't result in his removal from office, but if we're gonna impeach at least get more than half the country on board with it and let the Repubs deal with their voters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
I'm coming around to the slow-roll impeachment approach. Pelosi knows what she's doing.

Think about how the FBI investigation hurt Hillary in 2016 by convincing undecided voters her corruption made her just as bad as Trump. Now think about that FBI investigation times ten, with new revelations of Trump's iffy dealings popping up every week. Whether the oversight ever comes to an impeachment vote is almost beside the point. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
It isn't just about Trump, but his enablers and excusers and before- and after-the-fact accomplices, IOW his entire party. All offices are involved in the party brand image. The slow-roll process forces them to either continue trying to do the impossible by defending him, or show some spine and lose their base. But keeping it going weakens GOP Senate and House and state candidates as well.
I agree with all this.

It seems as though some are ignoring that an impeachment inquiry is already underway (with Nadler's July 26 filing seeking grand jury materials having used the word "impeachment" 76 times)*. Some people are dissatisfied with this; they appear to feel that a big showy announcement, with lots of chest-thumping from Democrats about 'now we'll get him' and the like, would bring a feeling of satisfaction.

I think they're wrong about that. Trump won't display shame or feel shame; he won't be embarrassed in the least. Other Republicans will be scornful, not penitent. A big production number "We're Impeaching Now!!!" will not provide the catharsis that some imagine it will.

It will only endanger the House seats newly won in 2018, and make it more likely that Democrats will lose the House in 2020. There's nothing "right" or "moral" about that.


*https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/26/polit...ury/index.html and many others. My emphasis in the polling quote.
  #71  
Old 08-07-2019, 11:23 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
Speaker Pelosi has released a statement on the progress of the various House investigations. Here's what the committees are up to:
Sounds like a lot of fishing expeditions the way it is phrased.
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #72  
Old 08-07-2019, 12:27 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
To distill my thoughts on impeachment a bit, I've always felt it comes down not to a specific outrage, but it's more about the timing. The timing has to be right. I've said in the past that Trump wants to be impeached, and I believe that he does, but only if he believes he can rush the process. If the Dems are patient, however, then they might get people on board with it and then we'd see a completely different reaction from Trump and his supporters.

The country has to be on board with impeachment. I don't think we're quite there yet, but we may be slowly moving in that direction. I do believe the country will be on board with impeachment once Trump's incompetence starts impacting people's bank accounts. American politics is almost always about what's happening with people's bank accounts, and it's almost always a referendum on how they view their future. I won't say other issues don't matter -they do and Trump's racism, general asshattery, and corruption are gradually wearing people out. But even with all of that, Trump could still survive an impeachment effort and even win the next election. It's the economy that will determine his political fate, and ours.

If there's one good thing about opening the inquiry, it may be that it can make impeaching him go a lot faster once Americans send signals that they want him out.

Last edited by asahi; 08-07-2019 at 12:28 PM.
  #73  
Old 08-07-2019, 01:02 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,430
We have to do whatever gives us the best chance of him not being in office 1/21/21. If he is impeached without lengthy public testimony that moves the needle of public opinion sufficiently, then Donald is going to claim that Moscow Massacre Mitch's inevitable failure to convict will be total exoneration and also claim the mantle of victimhood and that could depress Democratic turnout. Better to have the hearings, lay out the case and say "In an election year, the people need to try this case, not the partisan hacks in the Senate."
  #74  
Old 08-07-2019, 02:32 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
We have to do whatever gives us the best chance of him not being in office 1/21/21. If he is impeached without lengthy public testimony that moves the needle of public opinion sufficiently, then Donald is going to claim that Moscow Massacre Mitch's inevitable failure to convict...
Clarify for me: if the House passes a bill of impeachment (or whatever the terminology is), can't Mitch simply refuse to bring it to the Senate for a vote like he has other Democratic bills?
Quote:
...Better to have the hearings, lay out the case and say "In an election year, the people need to try this case, not the partisan hacks in the Senate."
Now THIS is the best idea I've heard so far! Are you reading, Nancy? (She prolly already thought of it.)

Time the impeachment proceedings so that the election is positioned to be a referendum directly on it. Don't need no stinkin' Senate. Take that, Mitch!
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr
  #75  
Old 08-07-2019, 02:50 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Clarify for me: if the House passes a bill of impeachment (or whatever the terminology is), can't Mitch simply refuse to bring it to the Senate for a vote like he has other Democratic bills?...
Maybe. But he certainly can just call for a vote without a real trial, have the whole thing out the door with "Not Guilty" in under a hour. Then Fox will say President acquitted and not guilty, and trump will tweet the same , and trump will win reelection.
  #76  
Old 08-07-2019, 03:08 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Clarify for me: if the House passes a bill of impeachment (or whatever the terminology is), can't Mitch simply refuse to bring it to the Senate for a vote like he has other Democratic bills?
I think this is unclear. We've only had two impeachments and both times the Senate acted on them, of course voting to acquit both times. I'm guessing that if McConnell knows he has 34 votes, he'll let things proceed if not, he'll simply ignore the impeachment. Whether he can or not is open to debate.
  #77  
Old 08-07-2019, 03:20 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I think this is unclear. We've only had two impeachments and both times the Senate acted on them, of course voting to acquit both times. I'm guessing that if McConnell knows he has 34 votes, he'll let things proceed if not, he'll simply ignore the impeachment. Whether he can or not is open to debate.
No, Moscow Mitch wont let the truth out. He will gavel the truth out of existence.
  #78  
Old 08-07-2019, 05:21 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
No, I'm not going to watch a YouTube video that references an occasion when he spoke publicly and not under oath. That has nothing to do with perjury, duh.

ETA: And besides, I'm talking about how most of the public viewed it. Contemporaneous polling backs me up on that, not to mention the 1998 midterms which the GOP turned into a referendum on impeachment, and lost.
None of this addresses my point that he was not "cornered" but that he chose to lie - both to the court and to Americans.
  #79  
Old 08-07-2019, 05:25 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I think this is unclear. We've only had two impeachments and both times the Senate acted on them, of course voting to acquit both times. I'm guessing that if McConnell knows he has 34 votes, he'll let things proceed if not, he'll simply ignore the impeachment. Whether he can or not is open to debate.
Ummmm ... there have been 19 impeachments and the Senate failed to act on one of them (Sen. Bount) because congressmen cannot be impeached. Also, it is in the Senate Rules that they must act on all impeachments regardless of how the majority leader feels about it.
  #80  
Old 08-07-2019, 05:39 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
...Also, it is in the Senate Rules that they must act on all impeachments regardless of how the majority leader feels about it.
That's good to know. But these days, don't the Republicans just ignore rules they don't like (subpoenas, for example)? And anyway, who's going to enforce that rule? (Not a rhetorical question.)
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr
  #81  
Old 08-07-2019, 06:42 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
....Also, it is in the Senate Rules that they must act on all impeachments regardless of how the majority leader feels about it.
Sure, but that can be "All in favor? All Opposed?' "Not Guilty!"

Show me where Moscow Mitch has to allow a lengthy trial.
  #82  
Old 08-07-2019, 09:12 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Ummmm ... there have been 19 impeachments and the Senate failed to act on one of them (Sen. Bount) because congressmen cannot be impeached. Also, it is in the Senate Rules that they must act on all impeachments regardless of how the majority leader feels about it.
I'm trying to find it here but having difficulty. I've tried all the sections I thought might apply but no luck so far. Could you point me in the right direction?
  #83  
Old 08-09-2019, 04:29 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,369
Try here.

I will point out to BobLibDem that it is the Presiding Officer that controls the trial not the majority leader and in the case of the President it is CJOTUS that presides.
See Rule 3
III. Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o’clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful. Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of impeachment, the Presiding Officer shall administer the oath hereinafter provided to the members of the Senate then present and to the other members of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it shall be to take the same. So no, Mitch McConnell cannot stop the impeachment trial from progressing.

As for ThelmaLou's concern. If you read up on the history of impeachment trials, the Senators have shown that as a whole they take their role within the trial very seriously. Yes some may play politics with voting guilty of for acquittal in higher officer impeachments like in the impeachment of Chase, Johnson, Belknap and Clinton but overall the Senate sitting on trial is very fair. I will point out that if ANY Senate trial outcome were based on politics it would be the Democrats that acquitted Clinton. His perjury charges were similar to Walter Nixon and many Democrat Senators that voted to convict Nixon turned around and voted to acquit Clinton. As for your other question, read Rule V, the presiding officer does have real power.

DrDeth, as I pointed out, the majority leader does not run the trial.
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.

Last edited by Saint Cad; 08-09-2019 at 04:34 PM.
  #84  
Old 08-09-2019, 04:37 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,369
As a followup to ThelmaLou, if there were any trial that was decided on political leanings it would be the trial of President Clinton. If you look at the perjury charges against Judge Walter Nixon and Bill Clinton they were very similar yet many of the Democrat Senators that voted to convict Nixon turned around and voted to acquit Clinton.
  #85  
Old 08-09-2019, 06:37 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
As a followup to ThelmaLou, if there were any trial that was decided on political leanings it would be the trial of President Clinton. If you look at the perjury charges against Judge Walter Nixon and Bill Clinton they were very similar yet many of the Democrat Senators that voted to convict Nixon turned around and voted to acquit Clinton.
Thanks for the research.

Regardless of the printed rules, I believe (and I hope I'm wrong) that if Mitch wanted to block a bill of impeachment from being presented for a vote in the Senate, he could do it with one hand tied behind his back (or in a sling). This isn't the simple partisanship that was operating in the Clinton days. You can't look to the past for any indication of how things will be from here on. This is blockage. Constipation. Full stop. "Fuck Obama! We won't even hold hearings for his Supreme Court nominee!" The old ways are out. The old rules, conventions, protocols, customs, etc. are out.

However, I hope and pray that you turn out to be right, and I turn out to be wrong.
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr
  #86  
Old 08-09-2019, 07:42 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Regardless of the printed rules, I believe (and I hope I'm wrong) that if Mitch wanted to block a bill of impeachment from being presented for a vote in the Senate, he could do it with one hand tied behind his back (or in a sling).
As much as I explain this to anti-Trumpers, MITCH MCCONNELLL CANNOT BLOCK AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. "Cannot" as in cannot, at all, period, end-of-story, full stop.

First of all, the Senate would stop him. They take their role of an impeachment trier very seriously. Plus they know that if rules are meaningless then the Senate would be anarchy. If a majority leader could act with impunity then the whole "nuclear option" wouldn't be so nuclear.

Secondly, the Senate Majority Leader has NO POWER in an impeachment trial. None, zero, zip. Now Mitch McConnell as senator from Kentucky has power as an individual senator to make motions, vote, etc. But so do the other 99 Senators.

Thirdly, if your argument is that Mitch McConnell might make threats, conjole, whip, or otherwise use his power to convince senators in making the impeachment go away then yes there is the possibility he could by moving to have the charges dismissed (Robert Byrd did this in the Clinton impeachment) and having them vote for the motion. But this could be done by any senator.

Ultimately, your belief that McConnell can just make impeachment rules go in the cornfield and Republicans will go along with it just cannot happen under the current structure for three reasons:
One - he does not control the scheduling of the impeachment trial. This is the base of the SML's power.
Two - He does not preside during the trial. Now technically he does not preside ever except at the will of the VP, but in this case he specifically has no power.
Three (and the hardest for anti-Trumpists to understand) - there would never be enough Pubs to go with McConnell on this. Let's look at it this way. Let's say you are in an organization. It could be a labor union, professional organization, PTA, HOA, etc. You are elected as a representative and the President of your organization is on trial to be removed from office and there are a couple of stipulations
1) Reps are elected (Duh I already said that) to the Board by the members of the organization
2) There are 33 representatives total. If you had to break it down, 17 are in the President's camp and 16 are the loyal opposition. No real neutral reps.
3) The people in your organization in general have a deep-seated belief that no matter what, the rules should be followed so that whatever the outcome at least it has the appearance of being fair. What exactly "the rules" are the people in the organization don't really know - oh but they think they know. Most of the time they're wrong.
4) Representatives will be running for re-election relatively soon. In fact in the next election 11 reps are running of which 7 are in the President's camp.
5) The trial is streamed live. People in your organization get together to talk and analyze every little thing. Of course, almost everyone either loves or hates the President.
6) The trial is run by someone at the national level meaning no one on the Board is in charge for the duration of the trial.

So a rep that we will call Lil Bitch who is the President's biggest supporter and VP of the Board, he comes up to the other 16 of the President's camp and says, "We can't prevent the charges from being read but as soon as they are we are going to short-circuit the system and I will move to dismiss all charges. Thing is, all of you are going to have to vote for it or it will fail. If you vote against it and when the President wins I will make your life on this Board a living hell"

Now convince me ALL 16 people will dismiss their duty to conduct a fair trial and are facing re-election eventually from a body that supports a full trial - convince me that ALL 16 go along with the plan.
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.

Last edited by Saint Cad; 08-09-2019 at 07:47 PM.
  #87  
Old 08-09-2019, 07:51 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
As much as I explain this to anti-Trumpers, MITCH MCCONNELLL CANNOT BLOCK AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. "Cannot" as in cannot, at all, period, end-of-story, full stop.

First of all, the Senate would stop him. They take their role of an impeachment trier very seriously. Plus they know that if rules are meaningless then the Senate would be anarchy. If a majority leader could act with impunity then the whole "nuclear option" wouldn't be so nuclear.

Secondly, the Senate Majority Leader has NO POWER in an impeachment trial. None, zero, zip. Now Mitch McConnell as senator from Kentucky has power as an individual senator to make motions, vote, etc. But so do the other 99 Senators.

Thirdly, if your argument is that Mitch McConnell might make threats, conjole, whip, or otherwise use his power to convince senators in making the impeachment go away then yes there is the possibility he could by moving to have the charges dismissed (Robert Byrd did this in the Clinton impeachment) and having them vote for the motion. But this could be done by any senator.

Ultimately, your belief that McConnell can just make impeachment rules go in the cornfield and Republicans will go along with it just cannot happen under the current structure for three reasons:
One - he does not control the scheduling of the impeachment trial. This is the base of the SML's power.
Two - He does not preside during the trial. Now technically he does not preside ever except at the will of the VP, but in this case he specifically has no power.
Three (and the hardest for anti-Trumpists to understand) - there would never be enough Pubs to go with McConnell on this. Let's look at it this way. Let's say you are in an organization. It could be a labor union, professional organization, PTA, HOA, etc. You are elected as a representative and the President of your organization is on trial to be removed from office and there are a couple of stipulations
1) Reps are elected (Duh I already said that) to the Board by the members of the organization
2) There are 33 representatives total. If you had to break it down, 17 are in the President's camp and 16 are the loyal opposition. No real neutral reps.
3) The people in your organization in general have a deep-seated belief that no matter what, the rules should be followed so that whatever the outcome at least it has the appearance of being fair. What exactly "the rules" are the people in the organization don't really know - oh but they think they know. Most of the time they're wrong.
4) Representatives will be running for re-election relatively soon. In fact in the next election 11 reps are running of which 7 are in the President's camp.
5) The trial is streamed live. People in your organization get together to talk and analyze every little thing. Of course, almost everyone either loves or hates the President.
6) The trial is run by someone at the national level meaning no one on the Board is in charge for the duration of the trial.

So a rep that we will call Lil Bitch who is the President's biggest supporter and VP of the Board, he comes up to the other 16 of the President's camp and says, "We can't prevent the charges from being read but as soon as they are we are going to short-circuit the system and I will move to dismiss all charges. Thing is, all of you are going to have to vote for it or it will fail. If you vote against it and when the President wins I will make your life on this Board a living hell"

Now convince me ALL 16 people will dismiss their duty to conduct a fair trial and are facing re-election eventually from a body that supports a full trial - convince me that ALL 16 go along with the plan.
Technically true, but everyone understands that Mitch, out of the chamber, still runs the Senate, still has power. I don't know how many times I have to say it: the rule of law, the United States Code, the Constitution of the United States...none of that shit is going to stop Republicans from being Republicans. They are not going to be bound by rules and procedures - they just won't. So feel free to completely ignore whatever your civics teacher told you about the constitutional procedures for impeachment because you don't live in that country anymore. You just don't.
  #88  
Old 08-09-2019, 08:05 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Technically true, but everyone understands that Mitch, out of the chamber, still runs the Senate, still has power. I don't know how many times I have to say it: the rule of law, the United States Code, the Constitution of the United States...none of that shit is going to stop Republicans from being Republicans. They are not going to be bound by rules and procedures - they just won't. So feel free to completely ignore whatever your civics teacher told you about the constitutional procedures for impeachment because you don't live in that country anymore. You just don't.
That's absolutely right because we didn't have
2 Pubs voting against de Vos for Sec of Ed
3 Pubs vote against ACA repeal.

They are lockstep all the time every time on all big issues Trump supports

Do you think Murkowski (R - AK) will go with McConnell. Perhaps Collins (R - ME) won't either. That right there means the motion fails.
  #89  
Old 08-09-2019, 08:43 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
That's absolutely right because we didn't have
2 Pubs voting against de Vos for Sec of Ed
3 Pubs vote against ACA repeal.

They are lockstep all the time every time on all big issues Trump supports

Do you think Murkowski (R - AK) will go with McConnell. Perhaps Collins (R - ME) won't either. That right there means the motion fails.
I can't say whether they would vote to hold a Senate impeachment trial or not, but one of three would be true:

1) If the entire country turns against Trump, then they'll hold a senate trial, and they'll probably force Trump to resign before there's even an official trial. McConnell or Graham will walk over to 1600 PA Ave and tell Trump that there are enough votes to convict a la Goldwater to Nixon.

2) Short of that, if McConnell allows a trial in the senate, it's only because he's already gamed it out and decided that it'll be quick, easy, and result in a non-conviction.

3) If number two isn't likely, there will not be a senate trial, and you can bet your ass that no senator that wants to be re-elected will cross him - period. Guaranteed. Take it to the bank.

Note: in response to your #2 and 3, that was in 2017, before the GOP was the party of Trump and McConnell. We live in different times now. The GOP is the party of oligarchy. As I said, we don't live in 2016 America anymore.

Last edited by asahi; 08-09-2019 at 08:45 PM.
  #90  
Old 08-09-2019, 09:25 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,228
Saint Cad, you are right about the facts. And I hope you turn out to be right about events, but this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
...3) If number two isn't likely, there will not be a senate trial, and you can bet your ass that no senator that wants to be re-elected will cross him [McConnell]- period. Guaranteed. Take it to the bank.

Note: in response to your #2 and 3, that was in 2017, before the GOP was the party of Trump and McConnell. We live in different times now. The GOP is the party of oligarchy. As I said, we don't live in 2016 America anymore.
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr
  #91  
Old 08-09-2019, 09:44 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,001
Surprisingly, these times aren't as interesting as one might imagine.
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #92  
Old 08-09-2019, 11:01 PM
DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,115
The GOP has already shown that when it comes to laws they do not like or agree with they will just ignore them. For example, how Trump's tax returns SHALL be furnished upon request. They just said no, we're not going to do that and there's nothing anyone can do about it. And since that has held true I can certainly see them doing it again.
  #93  
Old 08-09-2019, 11:07 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
You have to be living in fantasy land to believe that the Repubs are going to adhere to legal and constitutional norms. I'll tell you all right now: it's ordinary people who have to save American democracy. I know 9/10 of you reading my posts believe I'vr been hyperbolic and chicken little, but the I don't care. You all are a lot more scared now than you were a year ago when I was posting the same thing.
  #94  
Old 08-10-2019, 12:00 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I can't say whether they would vote to hold a Senate impeachment trial or not, but one of three would be true:
Aasahi you just don't get it. There is NO VOTE for an impeachment trial. There is nothing for McConnell in his power as SML to block. The trial is automatic and directed by the VP or in the case of Trump by the CJOTUS.


Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
1) If the entire country turns against Trump, then they'll hold a senate trial, and they'll probably force Trump to resign before there's even an official trial. McConnell or Graham will walk over to 1600 PA Ave and tell Trump that there are enough votes to convict a la Goldwater to Nixon.

2) Short of that, if McConnell allows a trial in the senate, it's only because he's already gamed it out and decided that it'll be quick, easy, and result in a non-conviction.

3) If number two isn't likely, there will not be a senate trial, and you can bet your ass that no senator that wants to be re-elected will cross him - period. Guaranteed. Take it to the bank.

Note: in response to your #2 and 3, that was in 2017, before the GOP was the party of Trump and McConnell. We live in different times now. The GOP is the party of oligarchy. As I said, we don't live in 2016 America anymore.

None of this make sense because McConnell has no power beyond that of an ordinary Senator once the House Managers present the articles of impeachment to the Senate Secretary. He can by rule neither allow or disallow anything. What do you not understand about this?
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #95  
Old 08-10-2019, 12:04 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
You have to be living in fantasy land to believe that the Repubs are going to adhere to legal and constitutional norms.
So explain this to me and be very precise. The House Managers present the articles of impeachment to the Senate Secretary. The secretary notifies Chief Justice Roberts who starts preparing for the trial. What do the Pubs do after that. Oh and assume Murkowski is the maverick so any motion the Pubs make fails due to a tie 50-50 (the VP cannot vote during an impeachment trial since he is not a senator).

C'mon tell us all how it'll happen.
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #96  
Old 08-10-2019, 12:07 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWMarch View Post
The GOP has already shown that when it comes to laws they do not like or agree with they will just ignore them. For example, how Trump's tax returns SHALL be furnished upon request. They just said no, we're not going to do that and there's nothing anyone can do about it. And since that has held true I can certainly see them doing it again.
What law requires Trump to show his taxes upon request?
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #97  
Old 08-10-2019, 12:29 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So explain this to me and be very precise. The House Managers present the articles of impeachment to the Senate Secretary. The secretary notifies Chief Justice Roberts who starts preparing for the trial. What do the Pubs do after that. Oh and assume Murkowski is the maverick so any motion the Pubs make fails due to a tie 50-50 (the VP cannot vote during an impeachment trial since he is not a senator).

C'mon tell us all how it'll happen.
Quote:
Wikipedia: "The Secretary of the United States Senate"

The secretary's responsibilities include both legislative and administrative functions. By agreement of the two parties, the Majority Leader selects the Secretary of the Senate, and the election is merely ceremonial. The current secretary (for the 116th United States Congress) is Julie E. Adams.
The Secretary was appointed by Mitch. When the bill comes over from the House, Mitch tells Julie to sit on it, notify no one, and do nothing. If she refuses, he fires and replaces her with someone who will follow his orders. Done.

Do you think this is impossible? I say who's going to stop him?
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr

Last edited by ThelmaLou; 08-10-2019 at 12:31 AM.
  #98  
Old 08-10-2019, 12:33 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
What law requires Trump to show his taxes upon request?
Nothing requires Trump to show his taxes upon request, except in the general sense that it's his responsibility to take care that laws be faithfully executed by his subordinates. The law in question is binding on the Secretary of the Treasury, who is obligated to furnish "any return" to the relevant committee of the House or Senate:

Quote:
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 08-10-2019 at 12:34 AM.
  #99  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:29 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,001
The Founders could have called Washington "Your Majesty" but settled on "Mr. President", because a President outranks a king. It goes king, emperor, president. And Andy Jackson laid down the fact that the President doesn't have to obey the court, because he's the head of the executive, he executes the law. So if he doesn't like a law, he executes it! Checkmate, socialists!

Yeah, stupid. But try not to believe that if Darth Shit-for-brains tweets this tonight, tomorrow ten million people will swear it makes perfect sense.
  #100  
Old 08-10-2019, 03:16 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
As much as I explain this to anti-Trumpers, MITCH MCCONNELLL CANNOT BLOCK AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. "Cannot" as in cannot, at all, period, end-of-story, full stop.

First of all, the Senate would stop him. They take their role of an impeachment trier very seriously. Plus they know that if rules are meaningless then the Senate would be anarchy. If a majority leader could act with impunity then the whole "nuclear option" wouldn't be so nuclear.

Secondly, the Senate Majority Leader has NO POWER in an impeachment trial. None, zero, zip. Now Mitch McConnell as senator from Kentucky has power as an individual senator to make motions, vote, etc. But so do the other 99 Senators.

Thirdly, if your argument is that Mitch McConnell might make threats, conjole, whip, or otherwise use his power to convince senators in making the impeachment go away then yes there is the possibility he could by moving to have the charges dismissed (Robert Byrd did this in the Clinton impeachment) and having them vote for the motion. But this could be done by any senator.

Ultimately, your belief that McConnell can just make impeachment rules go in the cornfield and Republicans will go along with it just cannot happen under the current structure for three reasons:
One - he does not control the scheduling of the impeachment trial. This is the base of the SML's power.
Two - He does not preside during the trial. Now technically he does not preside ever except at the will of the VP, but in this case he specifically has no power.
Three (and the hardest for anti-Trumpists to understand) - there would never be enough Pubs to go with McConnell on this. ...
Now convince me ALL 16 people will dismiss their duty to conduct a fair trial and are facing re-election eventually from a body that supports a full trial - convince me that ALL 16 go along with the plan.
Yes, I think that you can't find 16 honest GOP senators. Diogenes would leave baffled. The 'trial" would go as follows (under Mitchs direction) : All in favor of guilty vote Aye, Opposed Nya, the nays have it, done. No debate would be held, no evidence looked at , other than a sheaf of docs from the House which the GOP would ignore and shitcan.

Tell me, when Mitch decided the senate wouldnt hold a hearing or vote on Garland, how many of that imaginary 16 said "Whoa, we take our role of advice and consent very seriously. We have to hold a hearing, then vote no." Exactly none.

The Fox would announce the President was not guilty, and trump would tweet that, and trump would walk to re-election, since the trial was held, and trump was ruled Not guilty.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017