Impeachment Watch

The rules: No spamming, no making a nuisance of yourself.

Moderators: chijohnaok, Kameolontti

Message
Author
User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 37430
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1251 Post by chijohnaok » Sun Dec 29, 2019 12:59 pm

Pelosi and Democrats are whining that Sen. McConnell has shown his bias and that Senators should be acting like “unbiased jurors” in a criminal trial.

Senators are not merely “jurors” in an impeachment trial.
Their role is greater than that.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

jack t ripper
Sergeant Major
Posts: 32666
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1252 Post by jack t ripper » Sun Dec 29, 2019 2:23 pm

Every single Dem Senator running for President has publicly advocated for the impeachment of Trump. No conflict there, eh?
Strong supporter of global warming as I have invested in speculative vineyard properties around Nome

Gary Childress
Sergeant
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Pariahville

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1253 Post by Gary Childress » Sun Dec 29, 2019 2:26 pm

I'm so finished with national politics, I don't care anymore. I haven't been following the impeachment story at all. To be honest I don't care one way or the other what happens anymore. It's all about power and wealth no matter which way you flip it, and I don't have either. And, to be honest, it's probably a good thing I don't have them. I'd probably just squander it all on prostitutes and video games or something. :(
"Service guarantees citizenship" :(

Welcome to the Maddrive Dogthru!

"One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important." - Bertrand Russell

Mac
First Sergeant
Posts: 8382
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:16 am
Location: The Cockney Paradise

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1254 Post by Mac » Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:09 pm

Gary Childress wrote:
Sun Dec 29, 2019 2:26 pm
And, to be honest, it's probably a good thing I don't have them. I'd probably just squander it all on prostitutes and video games or something. :(
You say that like its a bad thing. :lol:
I could be the catalyst that sparks the revolution
I could be an inmate in a long-term institution
I could dream to wide extremes, I could do or die
I could yawn and be withdrawn and watch the world go by
What a waste...

Gary Childress
Sergeant
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Pariahville

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1255 Post by Gary Childress » Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:55 pm

Mac wrote:
Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:09 pm
Gary Childress wrote:
Sun Dec 29, 2019 2:26 pm
And, to be honest, it's probably a good thing I don't have them. I'd probably just squander it all on prostitutes and video games or something. :(
You say that like its a bad thing. :lol:
Well, according to most of the Hellenistic moral philosophers and to many world religions, it is a bad thing or at least not true happiness. I studied philosophy in college and took a lot of that kind of thinking to heart. Although, I wonder if all those philosophers and religious icons are maybe wrong. :?:
"Service guarantees citizenship" :(

Welcome to the Maddrive Dogthru!

"One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Lava
Sergeant
Posts: 2003
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:09 am
Location: On the beach

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1256 Post by Lava » Sun Dec 29, 2019 4:47 pm

Gary Childress wrote:
Sun Dec 29, 2019 2:26 pm
It's all about power and wealth no matter which way you flip it, and I don't have either.
Wealth... well, I was taught that if they took away all the money everyone has and made everyone start over again, the folks who had the top 10% of the wealth would be back in the same position within 10 years.

Power... everyone has power and it takes many forms. For example, as a whole, the populace has the power to either destroy, protect or create. Individual power is normally based on wealth, but that is a superficial assumption. Look at how many folks accumulated vasts amounts of wealth, only one day to OD on some crappy mix of alcohol and drugs. "Stars" have lots of money and "fame" but look how they make themselves look like idiots the moment they step in front of a camera and open their mouth.

Trump has lots of both. He has power because of wealth, but he also has lots of other forms of power as well. For example, when he talks to folks most of the time I say to myself... hey that is exactly the way I think.

So yea, wealth and power are important, but it doesn't mean shit if you turn out to be a giant asshole who everyone is looking for the right opportunity to stab in the back.
"In this present crisis, Government is not the solution to our problem; Government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan

"Because in America, we don't worship Government; we worship God." - Donald Trump

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 37430
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1257 Post by chijohnaok » Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:55 pm


The Hill: McConnell’s Got The Votes To Dictate Senate Trial Rules

ED MORRISSEYPosted at 8:41 am on January 7, 2020

And he got them from Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Despite the bombshell from John Bolton, Mitch McConnell pledged not to budge from his position that the Senate should adopt the same rules package that got 100 votes in 1999 for Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial. Thanks to the simple majority requirement for setting the rules, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi can’t force him to do otherwise:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has the votes to quash Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer’s (N.Y.) demands to require additional witnesses testify at the start of President Trump’s impeachment trial.

Two key moderate senators, Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), on Monday evening backed McConnell’s position that the Senate should follow the precedent of the 1999 Clinton impeachment trial and defer until later in the process the question of calling additional witnesses.

Collins told reporters at Monday evening votes that the Senate should follow the 1999 precedent and consider the question of subpoenaing additional witnesses and documents only after House impeachment managers and Trump’s defense team present their opening arguments.


Getting both Collins and Murkowski is some coup for McConnell, although maybe Murkowski’s the bigger surprise. Mitt Romney had already hinted that he’d just follow McConnell’s lead, but both Murkowski and Collins had made public remarks signaling at least some willingness to consider witness testimony in the trial. One has to wonder why they made this decision last night, rather than a couple of days after Bolton’s declaration of his willingness to testify. It’s not as if the trial will start on Thursday or Friday; why not let McConnell spend a day or two dialing down the heat first?

Probably for the same reason that Schumer and Pelosi haven’t actually addressed the substance of McConnell’s proposal. No one has yet offered an explanation of why the rules that governed Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial — adopted unanimously — cannot apply in this instance equally. Those rules don’t foreclose the calling of witnesses, but allow for the Senate to decide after the presentment of the articles by House managers whether or not they’re necessary. That worked out well in 1999, or at least worked out to be a reasonable process. Clinton got acquitted, so Democrats certainly seemed happy enough with them at the time.

Sauce for the gander means they should be happy with them now — unless this is a partisan exercise rather than a hygienic one. And to this point, not one Democrat has made a rational argument for why they’re insufficient, except insofar as the House impeachment is much more inadequate than Clinton’s. The articles are a melange of hearsay and speculation thanks to the hyperpartisan rush to get through a half-assed “investigation” rather than take the process seriously and solemnly.

Speaking of which, Pelosi’s game of hide-and-go-seek may have backfired with Murkowski, who derided the tactic:

The Alaska senator also said questions about whether former national security adviser John Bolton and other key witnesses should testify should be discussed only after Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

“We don’t have anything to get to? So do you have any interesting news for me on that? Like when we might be able to get articles?” she said.


Ouch, baby, very ouch. Regarding Bolton, Murkowski went even further, fully backing McConnell’s position that his offer could only be considered once the Senate received the case. “I don’t think there is any decision on Bolton,” she said, “because we don’t have the articles.”

If Collins and Murkowski stick to those positions — and there doesn’t appear to be any reason for them to change their minds now — it’s game, set, and match for McConnell. Schumer and Pelosi will deride McConnell’s rules as hopelessly partisan, all while still avoiding the big question their tactics raise: why should Bill Clinton have gotten different rules than Donald Trump?
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

C_S
Sergeant Major
Posts: 11882
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:49 pm

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1258 Post by C_S » Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:59 pm

I used to be a millionaire, Gare. Now I eat Ramen. " The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. Blessed is the name of the Lord. "

so it goes.
This post is not a legal document under any circumstance. It has not been prepared at all and is written offhand in jest while mentally impaired.
Do not act or rely on any of this information without first seeking the advice of a psychoanalyst.

Mac
First Sergeant
Posts: 8382
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:16 am
Location: The Cockney Paradise

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1259 Post by Mac » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:24 pm

You dun goofed Nancy...
Nancy Pelosi gambled and lost on the impeachment delay

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's announcement Tuesday that the full House would vote on sending the articles of impeachment against Donald Trump to the Senate this week -- a move that will formally trigger the start of the trial against the President in the upper chamber -- amounts to a stark concession that her plan to delay that action for nearly a month failed.

When the House passed the two articles of impeachment against Trump -- one for abuse of power, the other for obstruction of Congress -- in mid-December, Pelosi pointedly refused to transmit the articles to the Senate. In explaining that move, she said this at the time: "The next thing for us will be when we see the process that is set forth in the Senate, then we'll know the number of managers that we may have to go forward and who we will choose."

Pelosi's goal was simple: To try to force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's hand. Pelosi wanted to use her possession of the articles of impeachment to yield promises and/or compromises from McConnell -- most notably on the issue of witnesses being allowed to be called in the Senate trial.

Except that McConnell wasn't playing ball.

"There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure," McConnell said earlier this month. "We will not cede our authority to try this impeachment. The House Democrats' turn is over. The Senate has made its decision." And McConnell backed up that no-negotiation position with a show of force: Announcing that he had secured the support of a majority of the Senate to begin the impeachment trial without any decision on witnesses.

Which left Pelosi hung out to dry. The leverage she imagined she possessed to get McConnell to accede to her wishes didn't exist. McConnell was perfectly happy waiting while Pelosi held on to the articles of impeachment, probably believing rightly that these sorts of delaying tactics would look like just more Washington funny business to the average person. And he knew that whenever she decided to send the articles over, he had a majority waiting to open the trial without any promises made on witnesses.

In an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos over the weekend, Pelosi sought to spin her way to victory in the face of her concession. Said Pelosi:

"I have always said I would send them over. So there shouldn't be any mystery to that. What we did want, though, and we think we accomplished in the past few weeks, is that we wanted the public to see the need for witnesses, witnesses with firsthand knowledge of what happened, documentation which the President has prevented from coming to the Congress as we review this."

And, at least at the moment, there does appears to be some momentum for allowing witnesses to be called, with four Republican senators expressing their interest in that idea. But it feels like a stretch to credit how those Republican senators are viewing impeachment with Pelosi's decision to hold up the articles for the past month. A major stretch.

What Pelosi seemed to, uh, underestimate is the extent to which the Senate, by its very nature, resists being told what to do in any way, shape or form. While it is easy to lay all of that on McConnell, the truth of the matter is that the Senate has never liked being told what to do by the House. And the House has never liked being told what to do by the Senate. Each body views itself as an independent fiefdom, governed by its own rules and codes of conduct. The idea of one chamber telling the other what to do is simply anathema -- no matter which party is in charge of each.

That, plus McConnell's remarkable ability to keep his 53 Republican senators in line, led to Pelosi being left holding not much of a hand. The move she announced Tuesday is the equivalent of throwing her hand in, understanding that what she was holding was, in a word, dreck.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/14/poli ... index.html
I could be the catalyst that sparks the revolution
I could be an inmate in a long-term institution
I could dream to wide extremes, I could do or die
I could yawn and be withdrawn and watch the world go by
What a waste...

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 37430
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Impeachment Watch

#1260 Post by chijohnaok » Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:03 pm

From what I previously read, the standing US Senate procedures for impeachment trials (of a President or anyone else for that matter) is to first wait for the Articles of Impeachment to be received, review the information, and only then decide whether witnesses should be allowed/would be necessary.

The was the same process in place for the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, and it was voted for then by a vote of 100 - 0 for Clinton.

McConnell has merely stated that there is no reason to change those rules now.

Pelosi wanted a guarantee of witnesses before she sent the Article over...and she lost.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

Post Reply