Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Yes, he admits that he's changed his tune, and says that he is "more correct now".
Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2
- Thread starter Belz...
- Start date
- Status
Yes, he admits that he's changed his tune, and says that he is "more correct now".
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Hope springs eternal.
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
Not sure about that.
It’s a Constitutional mandate for Roberts to “preside”. A Senate vote cannot usurp that mandate, in the same way a law passed by both houses can still be rendered null and void by the courts if unconstitutional.
I think. But I guess it’s what Constitutional scholars make the big bucks pontificating about!
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
The reason why Clinton's impeachment backfired probably had to do with the nature of the crime. While the actual allegation was 'perjury', people recognized it as being "impeached over sex" (i.e. something that people commonly do, and that many people would not have faulted Clinton over back then.)
On the other hand, Trump and his administration have engaged in real, significant crimes... bribery/extortion (however you want to characterize the 'favor' he asked), failure to spend money as required by congress, violating the Logan act. Its hard for most people to look at that and say "Yeah, that's something I'd do")
Maybe, maybe not.
Yes, there are some benefits to Trump (e.g. he has used impeachment as part of his fundraising). But there are potential benefits for the Democrats too... it may help energize their base, even if Trump stays in office (i.e. "get out and vote the GOP out... they are so corrupt in protecting Trump"), and it may sway a few republican-leaning fence-sitters to either switch to the Democrats (or stay home on election day).
More Americans support impeachment than oppose it. It has been that way for weeks.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
In the original message quoted above, there was an intervening quote, but I think it works better this way.
In other words, I'm not sure most people viewing the actual events will see them the way you do, and I think a lot of people might put themselves in Trump's position and decide they would have done the same thing.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Whenever I hear that bit about the perfect phone call, I can't help but recall W.H. Auden's 1939 Epitaph on a Tyrant. Some things in this world, I guess, remain stable:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The Senate has an office of President of the Senate. The office is limited in its duties, which consist primarily of formalizing the decisions of the Senate, and of casting the tie-breaking vote whenever the Senate is tied on something.
The Constitution specifies that the Vice President of the United States is also the President of the Senate.
However. It's an obvious conflict of interest for the Vice President to preside over the Senate trial of his own impeachment, or the impeachment of the President. Obvious because it puts the VP in a position where he might be able to cast the tie-breaking vote to prevent his own removal or to make himself president.
Therefore, the Constitution provides that during an impeachment of the President or the Vice President, the Chief Justice will preside. But the job of President of the Senate doesn't change just because the Chief Justice is filling in. It doesn't magically become the role of Chief Justice. It's still the role of President of the Senate.
And lest anyone fantasize that the President of the Senate can overrule the majority of the Senate or the authority vested in the Senate Majority Leader by the rules of the Senate: Bear in mind that Joe Biden never once during the Obama administration went down to the Senate to put a stop to McConnell's shenanigans, under his authority as President of the Senate.
If the President of the Senate had the alleged authority, why didn't Biden use it to compel a Senate vote on Merrick Garland?
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,552
Yes. From the Senate rules (unless McConnel changed this section]:
And the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the Members of the Senate. Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate.
Trump
"As you can see, now I have been completely exonerated....My democrat persecutors put in their place and it's been proven to be nothing more than a vindictive witch hunt.... Let us not let them win .... I am stong enough to lead this great nation no matter what is thrown at me by those that hate our great country.....Great country......The greatest country.
And I will continue to be your great president....Great president....The greatest president of this great nation....The greatest nation."
Loads of idiot voters
"He is right! They are just picking on him.....Let's all vote Trump back in!"
Cain
Straussian
He IS being impeached for obstruction.
Democratic leadership was undoubtedly aware the Senate would not act in good faith.
I don't see what needs elaboration. The House requires a simple majority and the Senate requires a super-majority. Prosecutors around the country have enough evidence to hold trials against suspected criminals. They choose not to for fear of a hung jury or acquittal. The vast majority of cases are resolved with plea deals.
This is unavoidable. The House has to go through McConnell. There's a danger in further delays. "They're trying to undermine Trump's 2020 campaign." "They're dragging this out because it's a witch-hunt/fishing expedition and they're coming up dry." "Russian 'collusion' all over again."
Force a trial. More people watch the Super Bowl than the AFC championship. Per SG's post, seventy percent of the public says there should be witnesses. Howver, even with witnesses and overwhelming evidence, it's unlikely Trump will be convicted.
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 12,761
Bob, Trump's life and liberty aren't at stake. His wealth isn't at stake. He's got plenty of opportunity to present a spirited defense, with witnesses loyal to him testifying. I don't see how anyone is trying to undercut that right. He's the one refusing to cooperate in his own defense. Which is also his right, absolutely. [ETA: Barring some SC ruling that says Trump must honor congressional subpoenas, but I don't know how that will occur since the House withdrew subpoenas. Or did they?]
I never really understood why the House just dropped the requests for testimony and documents. They still have every right to keep inquiry going, as far as I know. There must be a strategic reason they said, "Oh well, never mind about the subpoenas then." But I don't know what it was.
Last edited:
plague311
Great minds think...
Great story. It could just as easily go the opposite direction though too, couldn't it?
"Hey, these guys were covering up for a criminal that thinks he's a king, vote them out."
One thing that kind of pokes a hole in your story here is that Trump didn't win the popular vote. He didn't win it at all. In fact, he lost by about 3 million. All that's needed for Trump to lose the next election is for some voters in key locations to flip their vote. Nothing will convince you because this same line is all you've parroted for as long as I can remember, but I think you're wrong. I believe that Americans have had enough of this **** and they're ready to be done.
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 12,761
Conviction is unlikely, but I think there are enough vulnerable Republican senators to make some of them balk at least a little at rules closing off any opportunity to question witnesses or receive documents. Unless McConnell's got authority not to recognize any motion to vote on rule changes. Does he?
Fair enough
It would be a pretty boring world if everyone agreed with each other on everything.
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 12,761
Only problem is, in the meantime Russia's probably getting better at the sock-puppeting, hacking etc.
plague311
Great minds think...
The citizenry is also becoming more aware of it. Whether they'll be aware enough to ignore it or not might be another things, but at least it's front and center during this election cycle. No doubt there are rubes out there that will be swayed by the Russian Interference Machine doing it's job. I really don't think it will be at the level it was before; however, and I'm hoping I'm right.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see it.
I can see the die-hard Trump supporters saying, "Who cares if he is the most corrupt Presidents ever? All hail Donald Trump, our Lord and Savior!"
I can see the anti-Trump forces saying, "We would have gotten him too, if it weren't for that meddlesome GOP Senate!"
I can see some of the very few undecided people out there say, "Wow! The GOP is sure in the tank for Trump."
What I can't see is some of the very few undecided people out there say, "Hmmm, while there were a lot of complicated issues here, the Senate proceedings have convinced me of Trumps innocence."
While Impeachment will probably fail, I just don't see it "backfiring" on the Dems, especially when Trump is caught doing more illegal and immoral things between now and the election (We all know it is going to happen). The entire "Impeachment will backfire on the Democrats" meme just seems to be more Beltway conventional wisdom. The same Beltway that told us Trump would never win the GOP nomination, that Trump would pivot to the center in the general election, that Trump would pivot to the center once elected, that Trump would pivot to the center after the midterms, etc.
I know that everyone wants to compare this impeachment to Nixon or Clinton (we don't have good polling data on Johnson), but it really doesn't track. Support for removal in Nixon's case started out low and steadily increased to high levels over the course of the proceedings. Support for removal of Clinton started out low and stayed low throughout the whole thing. Support for Trumps removal started out moderate and has been steadily rising, but very slowly. They really don't compare.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Trump's huffing and puffing in Davos trying to get distracting news attention.
Last edited:
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
I don't give two poops how minimal the penalty is or who the defendant is. It is the government going after somebody and they are trying to cutoff the appeal process.
- Status