While that is, certainly, a strategy for trying to throw things in Trump’s direction, I fail to see how it is advantageous for citizens?
If you want, for example, a government that does things that make sense and that aren’t stupid then I would suggest that if you’ve packed it with people who do things that don’t make sense except in terms of abusing rubes, in the name of doing what is stupid… Well that seems like you’re just going to get a lot of stupid legislation that only seems any good to rubes.
So unless you are a rube, I fail to see how this would somehow be good. And even if you are, it might appeal to you but that still doesn’t stop it from being stupid.
Perhaps it’s been explained elsewhere, but once it hits the Senate, isn’t Roberts in charge? Isn’t McConnell basically the jury foreman at that point? Won’t it be up to the CJ to decide the pace?
The “appearance of a conflict of interest” isn’t sexy enough for anyone to give a shit. Trump and him family have actual serious conflicts on interests and the country shrugs.
Is it your expectation/assumption that overwhelmingly Democratic and progressive voters will fall in line to protect and defend (at any cost) any possible impropriety that is found related to the Bidens, the way that 80-90% of Republicans fall in line to protect the well documented improprieties of Trump & Co.?
I don’t speak for all progressives (obviously) but I suspect dems/libs will not line up behind wrongdoing as readily and willingly as reps/cons have demonstrated time and time again. You not the least among them.
I believe Justice Roberts fulfills the role of the judge, calling balls and strikes re objections and issues of admissible evidence, witnesses, etc.
Here’s a more “read friendly” overview from [Buzzfeed](A committee of representatives, called “managers,” acts as prosecutors before the Senate. The Senate Chamber serves as the courtroom. The Senate becomes jury and judge, except in the case of presidential impeachment trials when the chief justice of the United States presides.). Interestingly, it’s the White House lawyers who act as defense counsel. I wonder who they will find.
Sorry, Happy. To answer your direct question, McConnell has already announced that if there is a Senate trial, it will run 6 days a week for half days (I can’t remember if he said mornings or afternoons), recessed only on Sundays.
LOL, you read my mind… but of course we both know it will not be Rudy. I wonder if Cipollone is any good at trial. I mean, if he’s as good at trying cases as Steve Menashi, it should go well.
Hunter Biden being on that board looks bad? Yeah, fer sure, it does. And Il Douche could have got some mileage out of that from sheer innuendo and insinuation. Not enough for him, so here we are. Dumb sumbitch.
The “do not prosecute list” is discussed beginning at 1 minute 33 seconds here:
Here the main source of news on the list, John Solomon, points out that there is also testimony by others that pressure was applied to prevent prosecutions. (I guess he is talking about the secret nonpublic testimony. Or it is in transcripts that have been released from the nonpublic hearings that more energetic Dopers can track down for us.)
As an Illinoisan, I find some interesting parallels between Trump and Rod Blagojevich.
One major difference though seems to be in how Democrats – members of Blago’s party – reacted to his wrongdoing. The Illinois House voted 114-1 with 3 abstentions to impeach Blagojevich. He was removed from office and prohibited from ever holding public office in the state of Illinois again, by two separate and unanimous votes of 59–0 by the Illinois Senate.
One thing really needs to be said about the new revelations that really irks me…
People suck who listen to their cellphone in a restaurant sooooo loud, they have to hold it away from their ear and everyone can hear, instead of just turning down the volume. Serendipity does not make it alright.
Given how partisan Congress is, I can’t deny that it’s terribly likely that their principal concern is to make a partisan win.
But say that the little boy cried wolf for the fourth time and, by happenstance, there actually was a wolf there. Should you ignore the wolf, just to spite the boy?
There’s a concept of kids not eating their food, because they’re angry at their parents. Personally, as a kid, I never understood that. If I don’t eat, then I’m hungry, and my parents haven’t been punished. I have punished myself. That’s stupid. There are infinitely better and more successful ways to annoy your parents.
If you have a hatred of partisan politics:
a) Being equally partisan just seems like you’re practicing a sort of blind self-loathing. I’d recommend getting over that.
b) The solution isn’t to ignore the crime of trying to corrupt our elections so that they give advantage to ever more and worse politicians than we already have, just to spite the Democrats, it’s to vote for people who aren’t corrupt and partisan.