Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Final official vote:

On the first article (Abuse of Power)
Democrats: 230 yeas, 2 nays
Republicans: 197 nays
Independent: 1 yea
One member, Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, voted present*

On the second article (Obstruction of Congress)
Democrats: 229 yeas, 3 nays
Republicans: 197 nays
Independent: 1 yea
One member, Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, voted present

(*A "present" vote does not count towards or against the passage of a bill, but it contributes towards the quorum, which is the minimum number of Members required in attendance for the body to conduct business legally)
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
i guess I will trust you no this, as opposed to the professionals (politicians be they may).


When holding someone to account depends on one group as well as another group, doing your part - regardless of what the other party does - is fulfilling your responsibility. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Feel free to call me cynical, but I don't think that's it. However, if it is, it's just self-righteousness.

I was in the car again, so listening to NPR, during the vote on article I. The commentators noted that the Republicans requested a roll call vote, as in the true call out each name and the Congressman says yea or nay. When asked why they would do that, it was noted that the Republicans wanted it on film so they could use it in campaign commercials.

I don't know how this will play out politically, and I don't know if it can truly be measured, but the GOP was the side that wanted the votes on film. They at least believe this is a winning issue for them.
 
I asked this in another thread but didn't get much response:

If there are going to be no witnesses called and no exhibits entered into evidence, what exactly will make the Senate proceeding a "trial"?
 
acbytesla said:
Are we not supposed to take the President at his word? Hard to believe sometimes, but not every word out of his mouth is a lie.
Click to expand...


Donald Trump in 2008, saying that Nancy Pelosi ("a very impressive person, I like her a lot") should have impeached President Bush for lying to the American people.

 
Minoosh said:
I asked this in another thread but didn't get much response:

If there are going to be no witnesses called and no exhibits entered into evidence, what exactly will make the Senate proceeding a "trial"?
Click to expand...

They do not give a ****. Not even enough to put up a facade. Going to be interesting watching it all develop from here though.
 
Minoosh said:
I asked this in another thread but didn't get much response:

If there are going to be no witnesses called and no exhibits entered into evidence, what exactly will make the Senate proceeding a "trial"?
Click to expand...

In a real, actual, criminal trial, the defense can request a summary judgement. It's a bit like that.


I've heard people talk about it, but I don't know how much leeway McConnell has. The trial has to be conducted by Senate rules. I don't know what the rules say about what has to be done before a vote can be taken, or who decides how many witnesses can be called, or any of those procedures. I do know that if they feel really confident, they can vote new rules before the trial starts, but that's a politically risky maneuver.
 
Minoosh said:
I asked this in another thread but didn't get much response:

If there are going to be no witnesses called and no exhibits entered into evidence, what exactly will make the Senate proceeding a "trial"?
Click to expand...

Nothing outside of street level terminology. The Constitution is a vague on the exact "nuts and bolts" way the Senate is required to hold their part of the impeachment proceeding. The only thing "in writing" is the 2/3rd majority needed for conviction. Everything else is based on tradition at best, the whims of the party in charge at worst.
 
Meadmaker said:
In a real, actual, criminal trial, the defense can request a summary judgement. It's a bit like that.


I've heard people talk about it, but I don't know how much leeway McConnell has. The trial has to be conducted by Senate rules. I don't know what the rules say about what has to be done before a vote can be taken, or who decides how many witnesses can be called, or any of those procedures. I do know that if they feel really confident, they can vote new rules before the trial starts, but that's a politically risky maneuver.
Click to expand...

Do you think they might start showing something other than utter contempt for the process? Any change would have Trump turning on them like he did Jeff Sessions for respecting his role.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Do you think they might start showing something other than utter contempt for the process? Any change would have Trump turning on them like he did Jeff Sessions for respecting his role.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the question. They have to abide by Senate rules. Chief Justice Roberts' role is to enforce those rules.....although what happens if they refuse is something that would be a bit tricky. It doesn't matter, though. It won't happen. They will follow the rules.


As for the possibility they will change the rules, that's part of the process. They can do that, if they choose. I think, though, that it would look pretty bad. Their spin doctors would have to work some overtime justifying it. Therefore, I think it will be conducted according to the current set of rules. I just don't know how much leeway it gives McConnell. I heard him talking live on the radio this morning. If he can do it, he'll call for a vote at the first possible moment, and wrap it up with as little fanfare as possible. I just don't know what the rules say.
 
Meadmaker said:
In a real, actual, criminal trial, the defense can request a summary judgement. It's a bit like that.

I've heard people talk about it, but I don't know how much leeway McConnell has. The trial has to be conducted by Senate rules. I don't know what the rules say about what has to be done before a vote can be taken, or who decides how many witnesses can be called, or any of those procedures. I do know that if they feel really confident, they can vote new rules before the trial starts, but that's a politically risky maneuver.
Click to expand...

McConnell has been negotiating with Schumer already. Schumer has proposed a few witnesses including Mulvaney and Bolton and having these witnesses provide public testimony. McConnell has said no public testimonies of fact witnesses. And the way the rules are set, McConnell can get his way.
 
TRUMP IMPEACHED

I think the enormity of this information warrants the largest, boldest font.
It's a strange feeling -- having great sadness yet taking great pleasure in being able to post that.
 
acbytesla said:
McConnell has been negotiating with Schumer already. Schumer has proposed a few witnesses including Mulvaney and Bolton and having these witnesses provide public testimony. McConnell has said no public testimonies of fact witnesses. And the way the rules are set, McConnell can get his way.
Click to expand...

“Never ask a witness a question you don’t already know the answer to.” I cant imagine there are too many answers from those people that McConnell wants heard in testimony.
 
alfaniner said:
TRUMP IMPEACHED

I think the enormity of this information warrants the largest, boldest font.
It's a strange feeling -- having great sadness yet taking great pleasure in being able to post that.
Click to expand...

And Pelosi has suggested she might withhold sending the articles to the Senate.
 
Sideroxylon said:
“Never ask a witness a question you don’t already know the answer to.” I cant imagine there are too many answers from those people that McConnell wants heard in testimony.
Click to expand...
Oh PLEASE call Giuliani, please please please. Giuliani himself doesn't even know what he's going to say next.
 
alfaniner said:
TRUMP IMPEACHED

I think the enormity of this information warrants the largest, boldest font.
It's a strange feeling -- having great sadness yet taking great pleasure in being able to post that.
Click to expand...

Yup, I think this means the House has done its part. Well, except if they withhold the articles, which doesnt sound quite right but would be a masterful way of trolling Trump.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom