The first domino has finally been played...
- Thread starter 9andaWiggle
- Start date
Greg T.
The Jizz Slinger
Now they'll drag their feet getting the shit to the Senate.
AlwaysWrite
Addicted Member
Dear Greg T:
I hope they do drag their feet. The longer this entire fiasco drags out, the better of an "insurance policy" it is regarding Trump re-election AND the GOP regaining control of the House!
AlwaysWrite
Addicted Member
Dear WAMO:
Are you also going to say "Really?" when the Senate votes NOT to convict him?
Greg T.
The Jizz Slinger
Mitch is threatening to throw it out immediately after opening statements. That would be hilarious!
AlwaysWrite
Addicted Member
Dear Greg T:
It would be hilarious … BUT I don't think it would be wise. It would allow the Democrats to say that the Republicans didn't take their charges seriously without even hearing the evidence -- as shabby as that evidence is. The Dems would also claim that the Senate was ignoring the Constitution by not having a trial (as specified).
Trump and the Republicans should take the opportunity to totally debunk the charges in whatever way his attorneys feel is best. But to simply "toss out" the whole thing would give the Democrats too big an opening. Trump needs to demonstrate that the "evidence" is unjustified, improper and not factually based, and HE NEEDS EXONERATION!
AlwaysWrite
Addicted Member
Dear Greg T:
A Senate trial is required (in the Constitution) to take up articles of impeachment. and judgment is to be rendered at the end of the trial. If McConnell were to bypass an actual trial -- and of course, it needn't be lengthy -- the Democrats could make a valid point that the Senate was not abiding by the Constitution.
I certainly agree that the House should have called the witnesses that Schumer is now calling for, but the GOP should call at least a few witnesses to, at a minimum, emphasize the proper legal issues.
THATS THE THING HERE G. THEY WERNT ALLOWED TO ADDRESS CERTAIN WITNESSES OR EYEBALL CERTAIN DOCUMENTS. TRUMP SAID NO. CANT INTERVIEW WITNESSES IF THEY ARE TOLD NOT TO SHOW UP. AW HAS IT (W)RIGHT. THE SENATE HAS BEEN HANDED THE DUTIES OF JUDGE AND JURY BY TRUMP. NOW TRUMP SAYS HE HAS PROOF THEY ARE WRONG AND WANTS TO SHOW IT AND HIS ATTORNEYS ARE SAYING NO. WHATS UP WITH THAT?
Greg T.
The Jizz Slinger
If I'm not mistaking, I believe the opening statements are viewed as a hearing to decide IF there is an actual case against the president. I believe the Senate has the choice whether or not to go to trial. No? I DO know that he will not be formally impeached until the articles reach the Senate.
AlwaysWrite
Addicted Member
Dear Greg T:
The "opening statements" CANNOT constitute a hearing if there is not proper debate to at least some extent. It needn't be a long trial, but keep in mind that the Democrats would have a STRONG "TALKING POINT" if the GOP were to simply dismiss the charges without at least a semblance of a trial.
The charges are be frivolous, but they must be heard and debated before a final verdict is rendered.
Greg T.
The Jizz Slinger
Okay. I was thinking the House kinda acts like the prosecutor, building a case, then turning the case over to the Senate like in a court room for a hearing, and the Senate would decide IF there was enough evidence to bring a trial. Apparently, if the articles of impeachment are presented to the Senate, they MUST move forward?
Maybe if Pelosi gorws some nads over the holiday vacay she'll actually complete the impeachment. So far, Mr. Trump has not been formally impeached.
AlwaysWrite
Addicted Member
Dear Greg T:
I believe that the Senate COULD refuse to consider the charges at all and declare the equivalent of a "not guilty" verdict … BUT … that would make the Republicans look bad and provide effective "talking points" for the remainder of the election season. Therefore, at a minimum, the charges would have to be presented, after which Trump and his attorneys can refute the charges however they so choose.
We all know what the eventual (no removal from office) outcome will be, but just because the House operated outside of the Constitution and normal procedures shouldn't mean that the Senate should also handle things improperly. Again, the trial needn't be lengthy, but it needs to be handled properly.
Greg T.
The Jizz Slinger
I was just wondering because the constitution clearly states "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". None of the charges in the house's articles qualifies as either. Should be tossed.
I THINK WHERE SHE SCREWED UP BIG TIME WAS SAYING SHE WANTED THIS TO BE SWIFT, THEN SAYING SHE WAS GOING TO SLOW IT DOWN WAITING TO SEE WHAT SENATE WAS GOING TO PLAN. THATS POLITICAL BS AT ITS BEST! THEN SAYING OUR FOREFATHERS HADNT PLANNED ON THE SENATE LEADER BEING AS CORRUPT AS THE PRESIDENT. THAT IS STABBING HER PARTY IN THE BACK BIG TIME! DONT HAMMER ME, BUT I DID READ A POLL THIS MORNING THAT 53% OF REGISTERED VOTERS SURVEYED (DIDNT SAY FROM WHERE) NOW THINK TRUMP SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE. THATS UP 5% FROM BEFORE HOUSE VOTE.
AlwaysWrite
Addicted Member
Dear WAMO:
It's ultra-easy to skew a poll in such a way as to arrive at the desired result. If you want to get a lot of anti-GOP or anti-Trump responses, simply make most of your contacts with people in San Francisco, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York City, Baltimore, Washington DC, etc. Or if you want an opposite (pro-GOP) result, make most of your contacts to people in Wyoming, West Virginia, Mississippi, South Carolina, etc.