Anyone watching Impeachment circus?
- Thread starter hamster
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,552
- Reaction score
- 22,379
- Points
- 113
Constitutional Convention of The States. That's how you impose term limits on those who will never vote themselves out of power. We're long overdue for one. We need to do it soon .
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Looks like CNN, has realized that ad revenue just ain’t happenin’ with this charade....CNN: McConnell’s Ready To End The Circus By Tomorrow Night
McConnell is expected to move quickly to acquit Trump if witness vote fails Friday
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to move quickly to acquit President Donald Trump if a closely watched vote planned for Friday to compel witnesses and documents for Trump’s impeachment trial is defeated
The only point left is to see whether the final vote on the verdict is 56-44 to acquit or maybe 51-49 to convict, or somewhere in between those two points. That’s the range of possibilities, and it doesn’t come anywhere near the 67-33 conviction vote necessary for removal from office.
No matter what happens, Trump will still be president, whether the trial ends tomorrow night or on February 29th or later. The only issue at hand is which side gets rhetorical bragging rights over the outcome of what is shaping up to be a predictable vote.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/witness-vote-mitch-mcconnell-plans/index.html
McConnell is expected to move quickly to acquit Trump if witness vote fails Friday
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to move quickly to acquit President Donald Trump if a closely watched vote planned for Friday to compel witnesses and documents for Trump’s impeachment trial is defeated
The only point left is to see whether the final vote on the verdict is 56-44 to acquit or maybe 51-49 to convict, or somewhere in between those two points. That’s the range of possibilities, and it doesn’t come anywhere near the 67-33 conviction vote necessary for removal from office.
No matter what happens, Trump will still be president, whether the trial ends tomorrow night or on February 29th or later. The only issue at hand is which side gets rhetorical bragging rights over the outcome of what is shaping up to be a predictable vote.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/witness-vote-mitch-mcconnell-plans/index.html
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2014
- Messages
- 10,999
- Reaction score
- 13,092
- Points
- 113
Demonstrated no more undeniably than when they rolled out some woman who claims Trump raped her 25 years ago and who wants DNA samples to run against a jacket she's had (apparently in pristine storage) for a quarter of a century.
Honestly, that's the #1 play. It's the go-to, game-on-the-line desperation heave they flat out make their living on.
They'll never stop. They'll never just shut up. Not only must the current administration win the reelection, but both the house and senate need to take ENORMOUS hits on the democrat side. They simply need to be voted out of existence.
CNN's John King giving me a bit of faith in our current journalists:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">CNN's John King: "Republicans make a good point. The Whistleblower started all this. Why has the Whistleblower never been questioned? Shouldn’t the House Democrats have found a secure way to do that? It’s a legitimate point of debate." <a href="https://t.co/lsutmBXBwJ">pic.twitter.com/lsutmBXBwJ</a></p>— ALX ���� (@alx) <a href="https://twitter.com/alx/status/1222996765412143107?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Ya think? Good point, John. Anyone want to follow up on this?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">CNN's John King: "Republicans make a good point. The Whistleblower started all this. Why has the Whistleblower never been questioned? Shouldn’t the House Democrats have found a secure way to do that? It’s a legitimate point of debate." <a href="https://t.co/lsutmBXBwJ">pic.twitter.com/lsutmBXBwJ</a></p>— ALX ���� (@alx) <a href="https://twitter.com/alx/status/1222996765412143107?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Ya think? Good point, John. Anyone want to follow up on this?
This proves how much of a circus this is.........."Jerry, Jerry, Jerry". One has to laugh at this **** show.
https://twitter.com/MattWolking/status/1223091603297984513
https://twitter.com/MattWolking/status/1223091603297984513
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2014
- Messages
- 14,731
- Reaction score
- 17,168
- Points
- 113
No doubt if he is acquitted, we'll hear how the process was rigged, there was no justice, etc. because the Senate did not call witnesses. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the responsibility of the House? I thought they were supposed to build the case in the House. The articles would then be reviewed for merit in the Senate and then voted on. At least I thought that's the way an impeachment is supposed to go.
Is there an impeachment hearing expert on board? How is this supposed to go down in a normal world?
Is there an impeachment hearing expert on board? How is this supposed to go down in a normal world?
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2014
- Messages
- 14,731
- Reaction score
- 17,168
- Points
- 113
Cruz probably also has skeletons in his closet he doesn't want anyone to find. Hell they probably all do. Some bigger than others though.
DRAIN THE SWAMP!!
DRAIN THE SWAMP!!
Just before the vote on witnesses, the Demonrats main stream media arm is trying to leak more false information about the Bolton book. You just can't make this **** up. The Demonrats and their main stream media arm do nothing but collude and try to harm this country. Everyone knows Bolton is a lying piece of ****.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2014
- Messages
- 14,731
- Reaction score
- 17,168
- Points
- 113
Just call the MSM what it truly is: Pravda.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
I'm still wrapping my head around the fact that people went to voting stations and selected Schiff and Nadler. Repeatedly.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,596
- Reaction score
- 29,967
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Well...we have a member here who swears he has a law degree. He's the "I Stayed at a Holiday Inn Last Night", ampilampse-chasing, traffic court kind-a-lawyer though.
I'm sure he will have an opinion, just not sure what it's worth.
Cucktime, that's your cue.
I didn't actually stay in the Holiday Inn Express - that place is expensive. I did, however, stay in the lobby until they kicked me out. Love their free popcorn. Further, traffic court is bruuuuuutaaaaaal.
As to the impeachment vs. real world - in the real world, the prosecution would be required to identify very specifically the law violated. The government, you know the ones with the guns and jails, cannot simply complain about "abuse of power" or some other fictional bullshit. So in the real world, a judge running a preliminary hearing or the judge overseeing the grand jury would ask, "So what's the charged crime?" The prosecution would say, "No crime. But the guy is a dirtbag." The judge would then say, "Get the **** out."
And that would be that.
For impeachment, the Senate runs the show completely and is the only vote that matters. Procedural matters - evidence admitted, witnesses (if any) to be called - are governed by a simple majority. Conviction of "treason, bribery, or other high crime or misdemeanor" requires the 2/3 vote, or 67 votes to convict.
By the by, the Constitution very plainly requires "treason, bribery, or other high crime or misdemeanor" for conviction. (Aticle II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution.) An actual CRIME, not a policy dispute, whining about election interference (because Republican, since when (D)ims do it, no problem), etc.
Finally, as to the mooing by the cows on the left about the Government Accounting Office report and aid to Ukraine - get a grip. The GAO does not allege that deferring the aid was a crime, because it isn't. 2 U.S. Code § 684 specifically allows the President to to cancel (rescind) a federal appropriation or to defer an expenditure. So the chittering goats on the left are, as usual, wrong.
The GAO actually complains that the President may - MAY - have run afoul of 2 U.S. Code § 684 by not informing Congress of the "deferement," but then admits it cannot actually make that allegation since the aid was subject to (according to the GAO's own report) "a brief pause," and the GAO admittedly does not know and is not entitled to know what brought about the pause, who in the House was informed, etc.
https://canadafreepress.com/article/gao-hit-piece-on-trump-gets-it-wrong
So to sum up:
- The Holiday Inn Express lobby is awesome, with great snacks and a big-screen.
- Only the best lawyers brave the world of traffic courts.
- In the real world, the entire shitstorm that has cost us millions of dollars would never have happened.
- Impeachment requires a crime and ....
- No crime is even alleged.
- To those ******* whose panties seize up regarding the GAO report like TSF's boxers when looking at Justin Bieber photos - ask a friend for a dollar and buy a clue.
- The law specifically allows Trump to delay, defer, even CANCEL spending/aid.
- The GAO does not accuse Trump of violating the law, and instead whinnies the usual lefty meme, "Rrrrrrrr, we need to investigate!!"
- Finally, if violating spending guidelines under the GAO procedures was a crime, every member of Congress should be wearing a steel mask and be sealed up in the Château d'If for a dozen lifetimes.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Witnesses validate this **** show and give these assclowns more airtime. Vote and put it down today.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
So now the Dems want Bolton to testify. I say the Reps go ahead and stipulate that John Bolton did not agree with the President. No need to have him testify. So what. Now vote.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,472
- Reaction score
- 17,455
- Points
- 113
They've been wanting Bolton to testify since this started. I think they should let him, then call the Bidens, Schiff, the whistleblower, and blow the lid off this **** show once and for all. Not allowing witnesses lets the Dems off the hook. **** that.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,022
- Reaction score
- 585
- Points
- 113
It's worse than that.
For the next 10 months -- you'll hear the Dems and media cry 'cover-up' in hopes of damaging the electability of Reps -- while the Reps and Fox will cry 'partisanship and political witch hunt' in hopes of damaging the electability of the Dems.
It's a complete political circus -- and we, the people, are worse off for it.
I partly agree with that. I also think that squashing this for the farce shitshow that it is, and not giving it false legitimacy to move forward, is a good move and gigantic fail for the Dims. R's should retake the House and gain in the Senate. Then launch the real investigations that will drain the swamp completely. That's what I would rather see.
I keep hearing fair trial but when did that happen while this thing was in Congress
Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
