Info PSA- Public impeachments start today- UPDATE 2/5/2020- Trump wins.

[Jhhnn]

The chief justice presides because the vice president is the beneficiary, so to speak, of the removal of a president. Otherwise, the VP presides over an impeachment trial. I don't think Roberts would have any powers other than those the Senate affords him. They make the rules for an impeachment trial and his job would be to ensure they are followed. If Mitch wants a sham, I don't think there is any way of stopping it.

Thank you. Well said.

 

[blackangst1]

Well, HERE is an interesting article.

Some highlights:

The House Intelligence Committee announced over the weekend that, despite an impeachment report now available to Members of Congress, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and his team will continue to look for witnesses to interview in the matter of whether President Donald Trump inked a quid-pro-quo with Ukrainian leaders.

Guess its a shaky accusation.

But just as it looks like the House is gearing up for an impeachment vote, Democrats — including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — appear to be moving the goalposts yet again, discussing delaying the vote until early next year, and adding additional charges relating to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report and a House inquiry into whether President Donald Trump unconstitutionally enriched himself using his office.

Thought this was a slam dunk?

Originally, the Democrats had promised articles of impeachment by Thanksgiving. And then, they promised them by Christmas. Now, it seems more likely that impeachment will wait until early next year, and then, may be pushed back further, given that a January hearing would impact early presidential primaries.

To handle that, Democrats aren’t dropping the idea of impeachment, but, reportedly, playing with the idea of adding items to the articles of impeachment, according to the Washington Post

Wait. I thought they had enough already? More shaky accusations?

That doesn’t solve moderate Democrats’ problems, though. They will still have to go home to their districts and explain the impeachment inquiry even if they won’t personally be voting on the report.

That'll be a fun Christmas!

I guess we'll see.

 

[Brainonska511]

Guess its a shaky accusation.

Care to explain why looking for additional witnesses makes it a shakey accusation?

 

[blackangst1]

Care to explain why looking for additional witnesses makes it a shakey accusation?

Because if the evidence they had was a slam dunk, why bother?

 

[interchange]

Because if the evidence they had was a slam dunk, why bother?

I don't know maybe because the jury has said they have no intention of running a fair trial, allowing witnesses, and are coordinating the trial with the defense attorneys? Corruption beats facts, sadly.

 

[Brainonska511]

Because if the evidence they had was a slam dunk, why bother?

It seems like the corruption currently uncovered is just the tip of the iceberg. All the more reason to keep looking.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, HERE is an interesting article.

Some highlights:


Guess its a shaky accusation.



Thought this was a slam dunk?





Wait. I thought they had enough already? More shaky accusations?



That'll be a fun Christmas!

I guess we'll see.

There's overwhelming evidence already. More will just help to make the GOP look worse. Dems can acquire & release more sworn testimony during the trial, even if the GOP won't let it be introduced to the proceedings. Or any time thereafter. Lots of things can still happen. Trump could beat every last ounce of integrity out of the GOP in some way unimagined.

 

[blackangst1]

I don't know maybe because the jury has said they have no intention of running a fair trial, allowing witnesses, and are coordinating the trial with the defense attorneys? Corruption beats facts, sadly.

Got a source for that?

 

[blackangst1]

There's overwhelming evidence already. More will just help to make the GOP look worse. Dems can acquire & release more sworn testimony during the trial, even if the GOP won't let it be introduced to the proceedings. Or any time thereafter. Lots of things can still happen. Trump could beat every last ounce of integrity out of the GOP in some way unimagined.

Ok. Towing the party line I see.

/roll eyes

 

[blackangst1]

It seems like the corruption currently uncovered is just the tip of the iceberg. All the more reason to keep looking.

Kick that can down the road I guess, huh?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Kick that can down the road I guess, huh?

How exactly is 'trying to bring in witnesses to investigate potential crimes' kicking the can down the road? Would you prefer they sat on their hands and did nothing?

 

[soundforbjt]

Got a source for that?

McConnell's own mouth good enough? Watch the news, you'll see the clip, it's probably on youtube as well.

 

[blackangst1]

How exactly is 'trying to bring in witnesses to investigate potential crimes' kicking the can down the road? Would you prefer they sat on their hands and did nothing?

I thought the hearings were done?

 

[blackangst1]

McConnell's own mouth good enough? Watch the news, you'll see the clip, it's probably on youtube as well.

Link where McConnel says he has no intention of running a fair trial?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I thought the hearings were done?

Sorry, aren't witnesses normally brought forward in a trial? I thought the senate impeachment was a trial of the impeachment claims?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Link where McConnel says he has no intention of running a fair trial?

Mitch McConnell: 'I'm not an impartial juror' ahead of Senate impeachment trial

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Tuesday bluntly acknowledged some of the political realities surrounding the upcoming Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, notably saying, "I'm not impartial about this at all."

www.cnn.com

He literally said he is not an impartial juror. That's grounds for a mistrial anywhere else.

 

[blackangst1]

Sorry, aren't witnesses normally brought forward in a trial? I thought the senate impeachment was a trial of the impeachment claims?

Uh... When did it get to the Senate?

 

[blackangst1]

Mitch McConnell: 'I'm not an impartial juror' ahead of Senate impeachment trial

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Tuesday bluntly acknowledged some of the political realities surrounding the upcoming Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, notably saying, "I'm not impartial about this at all."

www.cnn.com

He literally said he is not an impartial juror. That's grounds for a mistrial anywhere else.

That's VERY different than what you said. And you know the evidence in an impeachment doesn't taste to the level of criminal court.

Now where's that quote?

 

[BUTCH1]

Here,

this took all of 15 seconds to find.

 

[ivwshane]

Here,

this took all of 15 seconds to find.

I’m guessing his account will go silent for a while.

How is someone so unaware of what’s going on posting in this thread making any kind of declaratory statements?

 

[fskimospy]

I thought the hearings were done?

Did you seriously not notice that article is from two weeks ago and a number of its claims have already turned out to be demonstrably wrong? I mean shouldn’t your first clue have been the author saying impeachment was likely waiting until the new year when the vote is tomorrow and a majority secured?

This is sheer desperation and wishful thinking. It is already a slam dunk on impeachment, which is why it is passing tomorrow. There’s no reason to stop investigating though because there’s likely even more impeachable conduct to uncover in the future.

I told you from the start this was how it was going to go. It was always inevitable.

 

[blackangst1]

I’m guessing his account will go silent for a while.

How is someone so unaware of what’s going on posting in this thread making any kind of declaratory statements?

Again. This is VERY different than what was posted.

 

[blackangst1]

Did you seriously not notice that article is from two weeks ago and a number of its claims have already turned out to be demonstrably wrong? I mean shouldn’t your first clue have been the author saying impeachment was likely waiting until the new year when the vote is tomorrow and a majority secured?

This is sheer desperation and wishful thinking. It is already a slam dunk on impeachment, which is why it is passing tomorrow. There’s no reason to stop investigating though because there’s likely even more impeachable conduct to uncover in the future.

I told you from the start this was how it was going to go. It was always inevitable.

So it hasn't started the trial phase yet. Thanks

 

[fskimospy]

That's VERY different than what you said. And you know the evidence in an impeachment doesn't taste to the level of criminal court.

Now where's that quote?

McConnell is publicly stating he will violate the oath he is required to take when the impeachment trial starts. That oath is as follows:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-99sdoc33/html/CDOC-99sdoc33.htm

Rule XXV

I solemnly swear [or affirm] that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [the person being impeached], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.

No wiggle room there. He’s in direct violation.

 

[BUTCH1]

Again. This is VERY different than what was posted.

You ask for proof of McConnell's bullshit when a Google search provides the answer 1st 3 hits, you're not paying the least bit of attention.