Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
"We aren't bringing the charges to trial until we know the rules of the trial" is a reasonable position no matter the situation.

I'd set my license on fire before I would let my presence legitimize a proceeding where the finders of fact/law have clearly stated they will operate in bad faith. I've done time for contempt over this sort of thing.
 
bam said:
I'm not psychic but if keeping the articles in the house postpones the trial long enough for more drips and drabs of declassified emails to come forward it's a good thing. Lawsuits may end, witness testimony may leak, increasing pressure may force an actual trial rather than a farce. It's a good strategy, especially given what they had to work with in the senate.
Click to expand...
Not just more info on this impeachment.

Donny doesn't care how it gets done if he believes he has gotten away with another of his scams. So he may think that this impeachment is "over", and he is free to carry on as before. He might also be unable to contain himself too. Not only is he a serial offender because he gets away with it often, he also doesn't learn from his mistakes.

So Trump could get easily frustrated and escape his minders, and pull off yet more impeachable offences. Because there is no limit to the number of times he can be impeached. We may be back here again... Low probability, but not a vanishingly small probability.

So, in addition to all the other reasons why these impeachment articles are being delayed, this is also Pelosi giving Trump enough rope to get frustrated, do something stupid again, and tie the noose even tighter. He could end up with quite a rap-sheet! And the more that happens, the sillier McConnell will look.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Not just more info on this impeachment.

Donny doesn't care how it gets done if he believes he has gotten away with another of his scams. So he may think that this impeachment is "over", and he is free to carry on as before. He might also be unable to contain himself too. Not only is he a serial offender because he gets away with it often, he also doesn't learn from his mistakes.

So Trump could get easily frustrated and escape his minders, and pull off yet more impeachable offences. Because there is no limit to the number of times he can be impeached. We may be back here again... Low probability, but not a vanishingly small probability.

So, in addition to all the other reasons why these impeachment articles are being delayed, this is also Pelosi giving Trump enough rope to get frustrated, do something stupid again, and tie the noose even tighter. He could end up with quite a rap-sheet! And the more that happens, the sillier McConnell will look.
Click to expand...

This is so true. It means that instead of 4 months of inquiry and investigation, the articles could be sent over immediately.
 
theprestige said:
Now the House Dems just need to figure out what is right, and whether they stand for it.

Two weeks ago, "right" seemed to be putting the President on trial for his high crimes and misdemeanors. Today, "right" appears to be not putting the President on trial, and instead farming the impeachment process for as much partisan political advantage as possible.

Except that the impeachment process ended when the Articles went to a floor vote. So apparently the "right" thing to do was to have an impeachment, and then stop there. For partisan political advantage in the upcoming elections.
Click to expand...

Oh, FFS! The bloody Rebub Senate is playing a role here, too, in case you missed their refusal to play fair. You would have one player scrupulously observe the 'rules' while the other turns over the board. Eff that crap!
 
Lurch said:
Oh, FFS! The bloody Rebub Senate is playing a role here, too, in case you missed their refusal to play fair. You would have one player scrupulously observe the 'rules' while the other turns over the board. Eff that crap!
Click to expand...

1) The Senate is playing by the rules.
2) The rules aren't always fair.
3) Republicans didn't consider the House's rules to be fair.
 
Ziggurat said:
1) The Senate is playing by the rules.
2) The rules aren't always fair.
3) Republicans didn't consider the House's rules to be fair.
Click to expand...

The Senate, in part at least, is decidedly not playing by the rules when two of its foremost members publically declare they will not be impartial jurors. Thus violating the oaths they will (presumably) take upon commencement of the trial.
 
Lurch said:
The Senate, in part at least, is decidedly not playing by the rules when two of its foremost members publically declare they will not be impartial jurors.
Click to expand...

There is no rule, in either the Senate or the House, that requires any member of Congress to be impartial at any point in time.
 
Ziggurat said:
They don't take oaths to be jurors. They aren't jurors. They are Senators. They have a role roughly analogous to jurors, but the process isn't the same.
Click to expand...
Srsly?? Word games?
Senate trial

The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. The House members, who are given the collective title of managers during the course of the trial, present the prosecution case, and the impeached official has the right to mount a defense with his or her own attorneys as well. Senators must also take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence.
...

The trial is not an actual criminal proceeding and more closely resembles a civil service termination appeal in terms of the contemplated deprivation.
Click to expand...
 
Ziggurat said:
They don't take oaths to be jurors. They aren't jurors. They are Senators. They have a role roughly analogous to jurors, but the process isn't the same.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
There is no rule, in either the Senate or the House, that requires any member of Congress to be impartial at any point in time.
Click to expand...

Bzzzzt. Wrong!

"Senate trial

The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. The House members, who are given the collective title of managers during the course of the trial, present the prosecution case, and the impeached official has the right to mount a defense with his or her own attorneys as well. Senators must also take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence."
 
acbytesla said:
Biden could take the 5th. But why would he? He did nothing wrong. The only complaint I keep hearing is that he was overpaid. But I'd like to point out that Roberts could rule his testimony to be irrelevant to what Trump did. (And it is)
Click to expand...

Except that, well, he wasn't.

$50K/month for a legal consultancy position on the board of a major corporation is only slightly above average.
 
smartcooky said:
Except that, well, he wasn't.

$50K/month for a legal consultancy position on the board of a major corporation is only slightly above average.
Click to expand...

That's assuming he actually gave them valuable legal consultations. I find that... unlikely.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's assuming he actually gave them valuable legal consultations. I find that... unlikely.
Click to expand...


Evidence?

Another thing to consider is that the $50K figure is unsubstantiated. There are no available financial records of any kind to show that Burisma directly paid Hunter Biden anything. That figure first appears in an article in that veritable bastion of fair reporting The Daily Caller :rolleyes: and then bounced around in right wing echo chambers such as 4chan before being touted as fact.
 
Why should there be evidence and witnesses at a trial? It's just supposed to be a vote by jurors who already made up their minds.... unless it's a Democrat on trial, then there needs to be witnesses and evidence.
 
Pelosi's Masterplan: wait to vote on House Managers until the Courts determine that Pompeo and other "1st hand witnesses" must testify; then demand that McConnell lets the Managers call them as witnesses before the Senate Trial.
This way, all arguments about the Dems not giving Trump a fair trial are gone.


Well, that's my guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom