Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
Assuming the stress of living in a swing a county in a swing state doesn't kill me before then, I'm gonna vote against him. Pretty much the only direct form of power I have.
Click to expand...

You can protest, you can campaign, you can do all sorts of things, if you're so motivated.

I just don't think we need the whole "Nothing matters..." routine.
Click to expand...

Do you think that anger is necessary to vote? If not, then what advantage is there to being angry and voting vs. not being angry and voting? I'd say that if you're angry and voting, and someone else is voting while not being angry, then you're both accomplishing as much as each other. Each of you have a plan that is equally good, do you not?

If you think that's what my criticism of the Democratic Party's effectiveness is and therefore my criticism of it is hypocrisy, so be it. I acknowledge you have, in accordance with internet law and tradition, sent me official notice of a "Gotcha", as laid out in Chapter 4, Category 2, Revision 3.2 of the Official Internet Argument Handbook and I quote for the record: "The unforgivable offense of using an argument in one scenario but arguing against it another." I will file an appeal with the appropriate third party arbitrator on a date to be announced. I'll have my people stay in contact with your people.
Click to expand...

If that's what you want to take away from this exchange, then okay.
 
uke2se said:
Sounds a bit defeatist for my taste.
Click to expand...
As a proper late Stoic would probably say, "yes and no." It's not entirely defeatist if you can unhitch your personal fulfilment from the inevitable events of the world. Of course it depends on what you see as inevitable, but, as Epictetus said (paraphrased I imagine), "everything has two handles: one by which you can pick it up, and one by which you cannot."
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
The Senators are required by law to be impartial. All those who themselves admit to not being impartial should be recused.
Click to expand...

I wonder if they could read their public statements into the record and ask if they still agree with that stance or confirm that position. They were reading articles from various news sources during the house meetings ad nauseum. I can't imagine they wouldn't be able to do it in the Senate, depending on the rules I guess.
 
There's a Buddhist saying "there are some things in this world that you cannot change, so you shouldn't worry about them. There are some things in this world that you can change, so you shouldn't worry about them".
 
plague311 said:
I wonder if they could read their public statements into the record and ask if they still agree with that stance or confirm that position. They were reading articles from various news sources during the house meetings ad nauseum. I can't imagine they wouldn't be able to do it in the Senate, depending on the rules I guess.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of: "On [date] Mitch McConnell said in an interview with [whoever the interview was with] that he wasn't going to pretend to be impartial. Since the operation of this court requires impartial jurors, I move that McConnell should be recused". Followed by "on [date], [Senator] said in an interview..." and so on.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
That's exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of: "On [date] Mitch McConnell said in an interview with [whoever the interview was with] that he wasn't going to pretend to be impartial. Since the operation of this court requires impartial jurors, I move that McConnell should be recused". Followed by "on [date], [Senator] said in an interview..." and so on.
Click to expand...

That would be an amazing idea. I wonder if there's procedure for that like a jury selection? I honestly am not sure how they'd go about it since I know so little about impeachment processes.
 
Yeah, I've no idea whether or not it's actually possible, or whether such a procedure would be ruled on by the judge or by a Senate vote. But it's an idea.

At the very least it lays the groundwork for potential future perjury charges.
 
plague311 said:
That would be an amazing idea. I wonder if there's procedure for that like a jury selection? I honestly am not sure how they'd go about it since I know so little about impeachment processes.
Click to expand...

Well, let me enlighten you. There is none. The process is that each senator gets one vote, regardless of whether anyone thinks they ought to for any reason.
 
Trebuchet said:
The trial is supposed to be run by the Chief Justice, not by McConnell. I wonder what he'll have to say about impartiality, etc. Not a damn thing, I suppose.
Click to expand...

The trial is supposed to be run by the President of the Senate. Normally this role is filled by the Vice President, but in this case it's filled by the Chief Justice. The running of the trial consists of overseeing its adherence to the Senate rules the Senators have agreed upon for running the trial.

Unless there's a Senate rule about "impartial jurors" or some stupid **** like, that, I don't see that there's much the President of the Senate can say about it.
 
Trebuchet said:
The trial is supposed to be run by the Chief Justice, not by McConnell. I wonder what he'll have to say about impartiality, etc. Not a damn thing, I suppose.
Click to expand...

He certainly won't. The actual procedures for conducting the trial are set in Senate rules. The chief justice's role is to know those rules and be sure they are followed.

Eta:. Ninja'd
 
Trump Tweets

“They just wanted to get at the President. They had no intention of having a proper investigation. They couldn’t find any crimes so they did a vague abuse of power and abuse of Congress, which every administration from the beginning has done.”
@RepDougCollins @foxandfriends

Can you believe that I will be impeached today by the Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats, AND I DID NOTHING WRONG! A terrible Thing. Read the Transcripts. This should never happen to another President again. Say a PRAYER!


@foxandfriends “My hope is that impeachment will never become this trivial again.” @kilmeade
Well said Brian!
 
Trump Tweets

“It’s sad. Here’s a gentleman who came to the White House and all they had was never to let him have an easy breath. All they wanted to do is impeach him. They started the day after he was elected, even the day after he was sworn in. But this President came to Washington and....

....said, “I’m going to clean up Washington, I’m going to help people.” He gave big tax cuts, he’s made our military strong. They’re mad at him because he actually did what he said he was going to do. History will record we’re experiencing some of the best times we’ve ever.....

....had, while the Democrats are just looking out for elections. This President should just continue to fight like he’s always fought, for himself & for this Country. Continue to put forth policies like prescription drugs & trade policies. That’s what makes this President stand..

....out, and he’s been amazing at it. The Democrsts have no message, they have no hope for 2020.” @RepDougCollins @foxandfriends
Thank you Doug!

“They just wanted to get at the President. They had no intention of having a proper investigation. They couldn’t find any crimes so they did a vague abuse of power and abuse of Congress, which every administration from the beginning has done.”
@RepDougCollins @foxandfriends
 
Watching live, CBS. The republicans have no new defense, and some are merely babbling on about Trump achievements, not relevant to impeachment. (He fixed thing he himself broke.) Same thing they did in the committee hearings, a few new faces.

This reminds me of the oil pipeline hearings I went to. There were public statements made live in a room, some 300 spoke in 8 hours. The welders, about 50, all read an identical statement made for them to read.
 
Trump Tweeted


Can you believe that I will be impeached today by the Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats, AND I DID NOTHING WRONG! A terrible Thing. Read the Transcripts. This should never happen to another President again. Say a PRAYER!
 
Trump Tweeted

SUCH ATROCIOUS LIES BY THE RADICAL LEFT, DO NOTHING DEMOCRATS. THIS IS AN ASSAULT ON AMERICA, AND AN ASSAULT ON THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!!

In the end here, nothing happened. We don’t approach anything like the egregious conduct that should be necessary before a President should be removed from office. I believe that a President can’t be removed from office if there is no reasonable possibility that the Senate....

....won’t convict and remove the President - Then the House should not be Impeaching the President in the first place. If this is the new standard, every President from here on out is impeachable.” Andy McCarthy @FoxNews So well stated. Thank you!

“The evidence has to be overwhelming, and it is not. It’s not even close.” Ken Starr, Former Independent Counsel
 
theprestige said:
The trial is supposed to be run by the President of the Senate. Normally this role is filled by the Vice President, but in this case it's filled by the Chief Justice. The running of the trial consists of overseeing its adherence to the Senate rules the Senators have agreed upon for running the trial.

Unless there's a Senate rule about "impartial jurors" or some stupid **** like, that, I don't see that there's much the President of the Senate can say about it.
Click to expand...

You absolutely misunderstand what the Chief Justice's role is. By your reasoning the founders intended that the Chief Justice presiding over the trial to be irrelevant when a fair assessment of their intentions clearly show that hiscposition is to ensure the fairnessof the process. The Constitution doesn't say that the Chief Justice is to be President of the Senate, but that he is to preside over the trial. Wonder what they meant by that? It doesn't say anything about using the Senate's rules.
 
acbytesla said:
You absolutely misunderstand what the Chief Justice's role is. By your reasoning the founders intended that the Chief Justice presiding over the trial to be irrelevant when a fair assessment of their intentions clearly show that hiscposition is to ensure the fairnessof the process. The Constitution doesn't say that the Chief Justice is to be President of the Senate, but that he is to preside over the trial. Wonder what they meant by that? It doesn't say anything about using the Senate's rules.
Click to expand...

No.

The Chief Justice does not magically bring Supreme Court powers to Senate proceedings. He assumes the powers of the President of the Senate. He has no more authority over the way the Senate conducts the trial than the Vice President does, when he's presiding over Senate business.

He's literally just filling in for the Vice President in this role, to avoid the VP being in a position to rule on his own trial, or on the trial of the President.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom