 |
So if all three of them can do as they please, then why are the dems bringing charges of impeachment?Quote:
Typical right wing hollering points as just like the dufus can do as he pleases, and Moscow Mitch does as he pleases, how you wingers balk at Nancy for doing as she pleases.
This is the Schitt Show, remember? He started it, Nancy won't finish it. McConnel may have the Senate DISMISS the whole Impeachment.
Yes he could no doubt, but the conversation while we wait for Nancy has been about a fair trial, and witnesses. Repubs could vote against both.
The role of the Senate is to evaluate the evidence the House sends forward and rule on it. It is the job of the House to provide evidence. But if you want witnesses, then let's start with the Biden family and the whistle blower. I'm fine with that, but we both know the dems are terrified of it.
I think the problem is that the dems know they do not have a winning case. They are stalling for time in hopes of somehow finding something else, or trying to gain a little more political leverage. I think the American people are seeing what a useless, hate-filled circus this has become.
Yeah half of America sees it that way, but the other half does NOT. Speak for your half why don't you.
All political orientations and preferences aside, in all of this Impeachment goings on and other immediate issues, ARE NOT YOU STILL AMAZED at the ARCHITECTURE of the U.S. Government, set forth by out Founding Fathers? The checks and balances, the requirements, the compartmentalization of it all, with specific and defined jobs for each: It just goes to show you how insightful and wonderful our Governmental structure is and why it is the model to beat.....and, I could care less that the people who occupy the Government today are fighting each other like two scorpions in a bottle, that is really immaterial.
it is amazing and for all the battles between camps I sure wouldn't want a UNITED states against me. LOL, if this forum is any indication Americans love to fuss complain argue and debate. I look forward to seeing you guys everyday and sometimes ALL day.
8D
I'm sure I should know this, but what is the "8D" for?
Goodness gracious, JL!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=8D
Well you can take your pick, it is either a happy face or something rude, in context, I would say it is saying I'm one up on you either wayQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
{:>()=
I must sadly confess my appalling ignorance in such matters. Please forgive!! (<;
I did like this. {:>()=
Actually it's a big friendly GRIN, JL, freely given in appreciation. and gratitude. What no GKids to keep you HIP?
Pelosi has made her point though, a fair trial with witnesses and I doubt if repubs want the quick show trial clearing the dufus before an election, or a circus with the distraction of side issues though the dufus has clearly been rattled by Bolton showing up, and has signaled he will invoke executive privilege if Bolton is called as a witness "to protect future presidents" are his words. This is going to be really good I think.
The charges may be sent to the senate in a week or too, and while Moscow Mitch has the votes to proceed, does he have the votes to immediately dismiss?
I expect he will be in the position to proceed in whatever direction appears expedientQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Expediant and preserves his majority leader role which depends on keeping the senate in repub hands. That won't be as easy peazy as repubs make it sound, as this is an election year and swing state repubs cannot appear to just rubber stamp the repub marching orders and expect to survive prinaries and the general election. Didn't work for them in 2018 in the House.
That made me laugh. If you are ever so unfortunate as to be charged with a crime, pray that you will not be subjected to such a "fair trial" as the one they conducted where you are not even represented by counsel, the trial is conducted by your enemies, and you cannot even cross-examine the primary witness against you which was the whistle blower. Fair? Only on the basis of what a liberal dem sees.Quote:
Pelosi has made her point though, a fair trial with witnesses
That kind of kangaroo court is not what what will happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Who is trump's lawyer? His witnesses?
The point is, that's the very kind of kangaroo court that did take place in the House. As for the Senate, if Miss Nancy will get off her rear end and send the charges over to the Senate, they can get on with business.Quote:
That kind of kangaroo court is not what what will happen.
Who is trump's lawyer? His witnesses?
Trump did not get to have counsel in the House, nor did he get to select witnesses, and certainly did not get to cross examine the key accuser who was the whistle blower. Yeah. That was a really fair trial in the House.
Apparently, you don't understand what the House was supposed to do (they did it correctly) and what the Senate is supposed to do. Trump having counsel and witnesses is NOT part of the process in the House but IS in the Senate. There isn't a trial in the House; that's what happens in the Senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Where does it say that?Quote:
Trump having counsel and witnesses is NOT part of the process in the House but IS in the Senate.
The job of the House is to impartially investigate the charges to see if there is sufficient evidence to justify what should be the incredibly serious step of bringing impeachment charges against the Pres. I have no idea how that can be done if the accused is not allowed representation, or if the CHIEF witness is not even allowed to testify and be cross examined.Quote:
There isn't a trial in the House; that's what happens in the Senate.
In the US Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
This isn't the time, during the investigatory phase, where lawyers and witnesses are needed to defend when the evidence is brought forward by the House. That happens during the trial, which the Senate oversees.Quote:
The job of the House is to impartially investigate the charges to see if there is sufficient evidence to justify what should be the incredibly serious step of bringing impeachment charges against the Pres. I have no idea how that can be done if the accused is not allowed representation, or if the CHIEF witness is not even allowed to testify and be cross examined.
I could have sworn the House invited him to the proceedings and he declined. "In addition, the Democratic chairman also sent Trump a letter notifying him of his right to attend the hearing, as well as his counsel’s right to question the witnesses.".
In addition more facts! Looks like WG nailed it as usual as it was reported last year.
No, it doesn't. The text reads, "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Nowhere in there does it say the pres cannot have council and cannot call witnesses. You are flat wrong.Quote:
In the US Constitution.
Complete nonsense and nowhere backed up by the Constitution.Quote:
This isn't the time, during the investigatory phase, where lawyers and witnesses are needed to defend when the evidence is brought forward by the House. That happens during the trial, which the Senate oversees.
From https://reason.com/2019/10/09/what-d...t-proceedings/
"I've seen a lot of learned commentators on both sides of the impeachment debate arguing that the House *must* follow certain procedures (or not), or that the president *must* cooperate in the following ways (or not). What almost no one ever does is quote the relevant constitutional text, which is ridiculously sparse: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." There is nothing about what procedures the House must or may use, nor is there any indication to what extent the president and other executive branch officials are required to cooperate."
*****
"Some issues: (1) It's not clear that the impeachment process is an ordinary "proceeding." After all, a Senate trial is presided over by the Chief Justice, so know there are outside limits over the trial via the Chief; (2) The Supreme Court found that the authority granted in this language is not absolute when it prohibited the House from expelling Rep. Adam Clayton Powell; (3) Even if the House can make its own rules, one can argue that when it's acting as a quasi-judicial body, it has an obligation to follow its own procedural precedents, just as actual judicial bodies do (even if that obligation is not justiciable in the courts); (4) This begs the question as to whether the House has in fact established any rules for the current proceedings, given that there has been no formal vote to start impeachment proceedings; and (5) Regardless, it still doesn't tell us under what circumstances it's legitimate for the executive branch to resist cooperation with impeachment proceedings."
Each chamber is allowed to make their own process and procedures of how they go about their business.
Quote:
The 1974 report has been expanded and revised on several occasions by the Congressional Research Service, and the current version Impeachment and Removal dates from October 2015.[1]While this document is only staff recommendation, as a practical matter, today it is probably the single most influential definition of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Read the whole thing and it's pretty clear the rules were followed exceptionally well as while repubs cried beetched and moaned they couldn't stop the process on legal grounds.
You claimed the Constitution said the pres could not have counsel and could not call witnesses. What you claimed is incorrect. What you posted above changes nothing.
How on earth does that help your case?Quote:
There is nothing about what procedures the House must or may use, nor is there any indication to what extent the president and other executive branch officials are required to cooperate."
Geez JL, it's a done deal so what's the argument about? Stubborn in your old age aren't you?
You said it was a "fair trial" which was untrue. WG wanted to claim the Constitution prohibited the pres having counsel or being able to call witnesses. It does nothing of the sort. The truth ought to count for something. A simple, "Well gosh. Maybe I was wrong," would have settled the issue.
Yeah. I am stubborn in my old age. Kind of reminds me of a man I know in Texas and a woman I know in Chicago!
WWWHHAAATTTT!!!!! There are more like you? AAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!
Kind of alarming, ain't it?Quote:
WWWHHAAATTTT!!!!! There are more like you? AAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!
No, I am right. The House does not present the trial, which JL is hung up on. The House only presents the evidence; later the Senate has the trial. Trump's evidence and witnesses can be revealed for the House but don't take action to present his side until the trial in the Senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Sheesh!!!!
No, you are not right. Your contention was that the Constitution prevented the pres from having counsel or presenting witnesses. That is simply not true.
This was your statement. "Apparently, you don't understand what the House was supposed to do (they did it correctly) and what the Senate is supposed to do. Trump having counsel and witnesses is NOT part of the process in the House but IS in the Senate. There isn't a trial in the House; that's what happens in the Senate." I asked you where it said that and your reply was in the Constitution. It does nothing of the sort. Even the material you posted disagreed with your statement. " There is nothing about what procedures the House must or may use, nor is there any indication to what extent the president and other executive branch officials are required to cooperate." To top it all off, even what Tal posted did not support your statement. "Each chamber is allowed to make their own process and procedures of how they go about their business." There was no reason the President could not have had counsel present and called witnesses. No reason at all.
There has never been a disagreement between us on the general role of the House or of the Senate.
Sheeesh!!
So why didn't trump take advantage of that?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
What I mean, of course, is that there is no Constitutional reason. In this case Trump could not do those things because the House dems, who get to set the rules, did not allow it. So you see? That's why I say it was not a fair hearing. Constitutionally they could have allowed it, but they elected not to. Hopefully we have arrived at some sort of understanding we can agree with
You aren't the only one who doesn't know the ins and outs of your own government, and the rules they make to conduct business after an election. Now the dufus has been cruising along just fine when repubs had the House, but since that has changed, so did his influence and you can thank the American people for that. Wonder why America booted repubs out of power in the House in 2018? Didn't they know the dems would go after the dufus? Of course they did, since even you acknowledge, and he did too, that would be the case.
So let's not get so hung up on calling foul now, and what's fair or not, or who get's to make the rules of the road.
But that's exactly what you endlessly do, day in and day out, about Trump. Why don't you play by your own rules?Quote:
So let's not get so hung up on calling foul now, and what's fair or not, or who get's to make the rules of the road.
What choice do I have with the dufus lying, cheating, and pushing the boundaries of good behavior day in and day out for the last 3 years? The Russians are hacking into the servers of Burisma looking for dirt on Biden and son to help the dufus get re elected again just like Mueller said they would as he gets impeached for trying to get a foreign government to announce an investigation into the Biden's.
I guess Russia is still listening.
Yes Russia doesn't want Biden any more than they wanted HC. Both tarred with the same brush which is anti Russian. Russia isn't your problem, China is. you want to attack Trump, attack him on that frontQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Fortunately Clete it's not up to you or Russsia what our government looks like, at least until the dufus showed up and invited Vlad and anybody else in the world into our elections.
But you very plainly said, "So let's not get so hung up on calling foul now, and what's fair or not, or who get's to make the rules of the road." So why are so carefree about lying, cheating, and "pushing the boundaries of good behavior" ONLY when the dems do it? Why don't you follow your own rule?Quote:
What choice do I have with the dufus lying, cheating, and pushing the boundaries of good behavior day in and day out for the last 3 years? The Russians are hacking into the servers of Burisma looking for dirt on Biden and son to help the dufus get re elected again just like Mueller said they would as he gets impeached for trying to get a foreign government to announce an investigation into the Biden's.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:04 PM. |