Schumer's pipe dream, a trial with.....you know.....evidence.

[colfax_m]

There’s a huge problem with your “complete” analogy. The whistleblower has never claimed to have directly witnessed anything, unlike the caller in your hypothetical.

Even better. To incorporate what you want in the analogy, the person who calls the police says he heard one of the group that hates the new guy say that he beat his wife. Think the police would be interested in interviewing him? Yup.

Exactly how would talking to the caller help determine if the man is beating his wife?

It would help the man in his civil suit against the caller and the police when they arrest him for filing a false report. It's very interesting to me that on the one hand, you're completely gung ho for transparency, need to know everything, just everything, but when it comes to the supposed ignition point, you can't be bothered to even look. In fact, you're likely to get whiplash from your head snapping around so much. I think it's because you know that the WB isn't the real genesis of this. That happened a long time ago, before anything to do with Ukraine.

Sounds like that would be an entirely separate matter and has no part in impeachment hearings. Besides, you haven’t established anything about a false report. In fact, the IG confirmed the credibility of the report and witnesses have largely corroborated it.

I’m for transparency, but this isn’t an effort at transparency. It’s intimidation and diversion.

It's not a separate matter when it comes to judging the integrity of the process and ultimately the quality of the evidence. If Schiff mishandled things, he needs to be held accountable. You're still trying to avoid transparency on this.

It’s another diversion to investigating the investigators. None of this has any bearing on what we know about what Trump did or didn’t do.

 

[hadit]

Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.

Indeed, she can keep them parked up her anus as long as she so desires. However, her idea that in holding them she gains some leverage over the Republican Senate is laughable.

Laughable and dangerous. The longer she holds them, the more curiosity she builds as to why and the more likely it's exposed that she's colluding and coordinating with Senate democrats who whined that McConnel was colluding with the White House.

 

[Faun]

Lindsey Graham‏Verified account @LindseyGrahamSC
If House Dems refuse to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial it would be a breathtaking violation of the Constitution, an act of political cowardice, and fundamentally unfair to President @realdonaldTrump.

5:14 AM - 19 Dec 2019

• 

12,642 replies12,005 retweets39,927 likes

1. 1. 
      New conversation
   2. 
      Lindsey Graham‏Verified account @LindseyGrahamSC 4h4 hours ago
      Not allowing the Senate to act on approved Articles of Impeachment becomes Constitutional extortion and creates chaos for the presidency. It also sets in motion a tremendous threat to our Constitutional system of checks and balances.
      
      3,083 replies6,155 retweets19,984 likes
      
   3. 
      Lindsey Graham‏Verified account @LindseyGrahamSC 4h4 hours ago
      What is driving this crazy idea? Democrats have finally realized they have a very WEAK case which NEVER should have been brought forward to begin with.
      
      2,493 replies5,740 retweets20,639 likes
      
   4. 
      Lindsey Graham‏Verified account @LindseyGrahamSC 2h2 hours ago
      Nancy Pelosi’s threat to refuse to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for disposition is an incredibly dumb and dangerous idea. There is a reason one person can’t be Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader at the same time!
      
      1,510 replies2,042 retweets7,217 likes
      

Oh? Point out where the Constitution instructs the House to pass Articles of Impeachment to the Senate...

Right here:

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.


If this is, in fact, an impeachment the Senate SHALL HAVE THE POWER to try it. It is out of Nazi's hands, or Trump wasn't impeached.

Suck on that, Dumbfuck.

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.

You asked where the Constitution says she had to send it to the Senate. I showed you where it says she does. You lose.

Now you want to move the goalposts.

If she doesn't send it, she is in violation of the Constitution, Fuckwit.

I'm moving nothing. I didn't ask you where the Constitution says she has to send them. That's what you wish I asked you. I asked you where the Constitution "instructs" her to send them. There are no instructions in the Constitution about passing the Articles to the Senate. There is no timeframe. The House can send them whenever they want.

 

[colfax_m]

Obstruction of justice is a criminal offense and gets a jury trial.

And that's not included in the articles of impeachment, so it's a totally moot point. There are no criminal offenses in the articles.

Now you’re just playing semantics.

No, seriously. The president is not being tried for criminal charges, and this is not a criminal proceeding because there are no criminal charges. Therefore, the Senate Republicans have a lot more leeway to run things the way they want to. They can, for example, tell Schumer to pound sand because they won't cover for the House doing a sloppy investigation. They can also keep the democrats in session through campaign season if they want to, applying pressure to get a bipartisan acquittal. They have a lot of options.

The president can’t be tried for criminal charges. He can only be impeached. That’s why the courts don’t have a part to play in determining if he is guilty or obstruction. Don’t forget where this is coming from.

If the Senate Republicans want to turn this into a quest for truth into a charade, there’s very little I can do to stop them. But let’s at least acknowledge the fact that they aren’t fulfilling the role the founders intended.

Their role, as intended by the FF, was to TRY the case presented by the House. It is not to cover for sloppy investigative work or to dig up additional information that the House didn't bother to get. It is to try the case as it is presented. You calling that a charade means you don't understand their role at all.

That’s a gross misrepresentation. If that were the case, the House managers would have the ability to call witnesses at the trial. They do not.

 

[Nostra]

Lindsey Graham‏Verified account @LindseyGrahamSC
If House Dems refuse to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial it would be a breathtaking violation of the Constitution, an act of political cowardice, and fundamentally unfair to President @realdonaldTrump.

5:14 AM - 19 Dec 2019

• 

12,642 replies12,005 retweets39,927 likes

1. 1. 
      New conversation
   2. 
      Lindsey Graham‏Verified account @LindseyGrahamSC 4h4 hours ago
      Not allowing the Senate to act on approved Articles of Impeachment becomes Constitutional extortion and creates chaos for the presidency. It also sets in motion a tremendous threat to our Constitutional system of checks and balances.
      
      3,083 replies6,155 retweets19,984 likes
      
   3. 
      Lindsey Graham‏Verified account @LindseyGrahamSC 4h4 hours ago
      What is driving this crazy idea? Democrats have finally realized they have a very WEAK case which NEVER should have been brought forward to begin with.
      
      2,493 replies5,740 retweets20,639 likes
      
   4. 
      Lindsey Graham‏Verified account @LindseyGrahamSC 2h2 hours ago
      Nancy Pelosi’s threat to refuse to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for disposition is an incredibly dumb and dangerous idea. There is a reason one person can’t be Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader at the same time!
      
      1,510 replies2,042 retweets7,217 likes
      

Oh? Point out where the Constitution instructs the House to pass Articles of Impeachment to the Senate...

Right here:

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.


If this is, in fact, an impeachment the Senate SHALL HAVE THE POWER to try it. It is out of Nazi's hands, or Trump wasn't impeached.

Suck on that, Dumbfuck.

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.

You asked where the Constitution says she had to send it to the Senate. I showed you where it says she does. You lose.

Now you want to move the goalposts.

If she doesn't send it, she is in violation of the Constitution, Fuckwit.

I'm moving nothing. I didn't ask you where the Constitution says she has to send them. That's what you wish I asked you. I asked you where the Constitution "instructs" her to send them. There are no instructions in the Constitution about passing the Articles to the Senate. There is no timeframe. The House can send them whenever they want.

More crawfishing. You lost. If she doesn't send them to the Senate, she is in violation of the Constitution.

Mitch can tell her to pound sand, she has no say in anything the Senate does.

 

[hadit]

Even better. To incorporate what you want in the analogy, the person who calls the police says he heard one of the group that hates the new guy say that he beat his wife. Think the police would be interested in interviewing him? Yup.

Exactly how would talking to the caller help determine if the man is beating his wife?

It would help the man in his civil suit against the caller and the police when they arrest him for filing a false report. It's very interesting to me that on the one hand, you're completely gung ho for transparency, need to know everything, just everything, but when it comes to the supposed ignition point, you can't be bothered to even look. In fact, you're likely to get whiplash from your head snapping around so much. I think it's because you know that the WB isn't the real genesis of this. That happened a long time ago, before anything to do with Ukraine.

Sounds like that would be an entirely separate matter and has no part in impeachment hearings. Besides, you haven’t established anything about a false report. In fact, the IG confirmed the credibility of the report and witnesses have largely corroborated it.

I’m for transparency, but this isn’t an effort at transparency. It’s intimidation and diversion.

It's not a separate matter when it comes to judging the integrity of the process and ultimately the quality of the evidence. If Schiff mishandled things, he needs to be held accountable. You're still trying to avoid transparency on this.

It’s another diversion to investigating the investigators. None of this has any bearing on what we know about what Trump did or didn’t do.

That's the attitude I find very troubling in this whole mess. You don't even want to put the supposed ignition point on the stand to find out who leaked the contents of a confidential presidential phone call because you don't want to hold the investigators accountable for their actions. I can only believe you want to avoid weakening the already moribund case against Trump.

 

[hadit]

And that's not included in the articles of impeachment, so it's a totally moot point. There are no criminal offenses in the articles.

Now you’re just playing semantics.

No, seriously. The president is not being tried for criminal charges, and this is not a criminal proceeding because there are no criminal charges. Therefore, the Senate Republicans have a lot more leeway to run things the way they want to. They can, for example, tell Schumer to pound sand because they won't cover for the House doing a sloppy investigation. They can also keep the democrats in session through campaign season if they want to, applying pressure to get a bipartisan acquittal. They have a lot of options.

The president can’t be tried for criminal charges. He can only be impeached. That’s why the courts don’t have a part to play in determining if he is guilty or obstruction. Don’t forget where this is coming from.

If the Senate Republicans want to turn this into a quest for truth into a charade, there’s very little I can do to stop them. But let’s at least acknowledge the fact that they aren’t fulfilling the role the founders intended.

Their role, as intended by the FF, was to TRY the case presented by the House. It is not to cover for sloppy investigative work or to dig up additional information that the House didn't bother to get. It is to try the case as it is presented. You calling that a charade means you don't understand their role at all.

That’s a gross misrepresentation. If that were the case, the House managers would have the ability to call witnesses at the trial. They do not.

That's right, they had the right to call them during the investigation. They're not in control in the Senate, nor should they be. This whole thing was set up deliberately to avoid what the democrats are transparently trying to do, rush impeachment through on strict partisan lines. Face it, if the House managers wanted to call witnesses, they had the opportunity and authority to do just that. It's not the Senate's responsibility to do it for them.

 

[Faun]

Again, how was it good for Clinton? His party still lost both chambers of Congress in the 1998 election and list them again in the 2000 election where his VP also lost his bid for the White House.

I'm not getting your point here.

That Bubba retired with higher approval numbers than before being impeached. His VP losing had more to do with his inability to even hold his own state.

That's simply not true. Now you're just making up shit. Clinton had JARs as high the mid to high 60's before being impeached and left office with JARs in the mid to high 60's.

What's your point? A president gets impeached and leave office with numbers in the 60's. Didn't hurt him very much, did it? Of course, losing his law license for a while and having his handlers pay 90K+ in fines wasn't much fun, but his approval numbers held strong.

I'm still not getting your point? Sounds like you're saying Democrats will win the Executive branch, House and Senate in 2020 and that Trump will vacate the White House in January 2021 with a higher job approval rating than the 45% he currently enjoys.

Sure, good luck with making that happen. I'm not saying anything will happen beyond Trump will be in office until January, 2021. I am saying that impeachment followed by acquittal doesn't seem to harm a president a whole lot. We have unique circumstance here, because Trump is in his first term, unlike Bubba.

LOLOL

I'm not the one saying the party doing the impeaching will win both branches of government while the impeached president will leave office but with higher approval ratings.

You're the one saying that.

 

[hadit]

That Bubba retired with higher approval numbers than before being impeached. His VP losing had more to do with his inability to even hold his own state.

That's simply not true. Now you're just making up shit. Clinton had JARs as high the mid to high 60's before being impeached and left office with JARs in the mid to high 60's.

What's your point? A president gets impeached and leave office with numbers in the 60's. Didn't hurt him very much, did it? Of course, losing his law license for a while and having his handlers pay 90K+ in fines wasn't much fun, but his approval numbers held strong.

I'm still not getting your point? Sounds like you're saying Democrats will win the Executive branch, House and Senate in 2020 and that Trump will vacate the White House in January 2021 with a higher job approval rating than the 45% he currently enjoys.

Sure, good luck with making that happen. I'm not saying anything will happen beyond Trump will be in office until January, 2021. I am saying that impeachment followed by acquittal doesn't seem to harm a president a whole lot. We have unique circumstance here, because Trump is in his first term, unlike Bubba.

LOLOL

I'm not the one saying the party doing the impeaching will win both branches of government while the impeached president will leave office but with higher approval ratings.

You're the one saying that.

Obviously didn't read what I wrote.

 

[colfax_m]

Exactly how would talking to the caller help determine if the man is beating his wife?

It would help the man in his civil suit against the caller and the police when they arrest him for filing a false report. It's very interesting to me that on the one hand, you're completely gung ho for transparency, need to know everything, just everything, but when it comes to the supposed ignition point, you can't be bothered to even look. In fact, you're likely to get whiplash from your head snapping around so much. I think it's because you know that the WB isn't the real genesis of this. That happened a long time ago, before anything to do with Ukraine.

Sounds like that would be an entirely separate matter and has no part in impeachment hearings. Besides, you haven’t established anything about a false report. In fact, the IG confirmed the credibility of the report and witnesses have largely corroborated it.

I’m for transparency, but this isn’t an effort at transparency. It’s intimidation and diversion.

It's not a separate matter when it comes to judging the integrity of the process and ultimately the quality of the evidence. If Schiff mishandled things, he needs to be held accountable. You're still trying to avoid transparency on this.

It’s another diversion to investigating the investigators. None of this has any bearing on what we know about what Trump did or didn’t do.

That's the attitude I find very troubling in this whole mess. You don't even want to put the supposed ignition point on the stand to find out who leaked the contents of a confidential presidential phone call because you don't want to hold the investigators accountable for their actions. I can only believe you want to avoid weakening the already moribund case against Trump.

Republicans spent months downplaying the whistleblower as hearsay, inadmissible, unreliable and now you want to act like they’re the central figure? Do you think I’m dumb? Do you think I forgot everything Republicans have been saying?

The whistleblower cannot provide any information for or against the president that changes anything we already know.

Attacking the process is all Republicans have. It’s an attempt at distraction from the issue at hand which Republicans are desperately trying to avoid.

 

[Faun]

Oh? Point out where the Constitution instructs the House to pass Articles of Impeachment to the Senate...

Right here:

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.


If this is, in fact, an impeachment the Senate SHALL HAVE THE POWER to try it. It is out of Nazi's hands, or Trump wasn't impeached.

Suck on that, Dumbfuck.

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.

You asked where the Constitution says she had to send it to the Senate. I showed you where it says she does. You lose.

Now you want to move the goalposts.

If she doesn't send it, she is in violation of the Constitution, Fuckwit.

I'm moving nothing. I didn't ask you where the Constitution says she has to send them. That's what you wish I asked you. I asked you where the Constitution "instructs" her to send them. There are no instructions in the Constitution about passing the Articles to the Senate. There is no timeframe. The House can send them whenever they want.

More crawfishing. You lost. If she doesn't send them to the Senate, she is in violation of the Constitution.

Mitch can tell her to pound sand, she has no say in anything the Senate does.

LOLOL

So you say, but you're a dumbfuck. So there's that. In reality, nothing in the Constitution says when she has to send them.

 

[Nostra]

Right here:

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.


If this is, in fact, an impeachment the Senate SHALL HAVE THE POWER to try it. It is out of Nazi's hands, or Trump wasn't impeached.

Suck on that, Dumbfuck.

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.

You asked where the Constitution says she had to send it to the Senate. I showed you where it says she does. You lose.

Now you want to move the goalposts.

If she doesn't send it, she is in violation of the Constitution, Fuckwit.

I'm moving nothing. I didn't ask you where the Constitution says she has to send them. That's what you wish I asked you. I asked you where the Constitution "instructs" her to send them. There are no instructions in the Constitution about passing the Articles to the Senate. There is no timeframe. The House can send them whenever they want.

More crawfishing. You lost. If she doesn't send them to the Senate, she is in violation of the Constitution.

Mitch can tell her to pound sand, she has no say in anything the Senate does.

LOLOL

So you say, but you're a dumbfuck. So there's that. In reality, nothing in the Constitution says when she has to send them.

I just posted directly from the Constitution where it does. If she doesn't, he wasn't impeached, Fuckwit.

 

[colfax_m]

Now you’re just playing semantics.

No, seriously. The president is not being tried for criminal charges, and this is not a criminal proceeding because there are no criminal charges. Therefore, the Senate Republicans have a lot more leeway to run things the way they want to. They can, for example, tell Schumer to pound sand because they won't cover for the House doing a sloppy investigation. They can also keep the democrats in session through campaign season if they want to, applying pressure to get a bipartisan acquittal. They have a lot of options.

The president can’t be tried for criminal charges. He can only be impeached. That’s why the courts don’t have a part to play in determining if he is guilty or obstruction. Don’t forget where this is coming from.

If the Senate Republicans want to turn this into a quest for truth into a charade, there’s very little I can do to stop them. But let’s at least acknowledge the fact that they aren’t fulfilling the role the founders intended.

Their role, as intended by the FF, was to TRY the case presented by the House. It is not to cover for sloppy investigative work or to dig up additional information that the House didn't bother to get. It is to try the case as it is presented. You calling that a charade means you don't understand their role at all.

That’s a gross misrepresentation. If that were the case, the House managers would have the ability to call witnesses at the trial. They do not.

That's right, they had the right to call them during the investigation. They're not in control in the Senate, nor should they be. This whole thing was set up deliberately to avoid what the democrats are transparently trying to do, rush impeachment through on strict partisan lines. Face it, if the House managers wanted to call witnesses, they had the opportunity and authority to do just that. It's not the Senate's responsibility to do it for them.

It’s the Senate’s responsibility to have a trail where the facts are heard and a verdict is reached. The Senate Republicans are not indicating they will live up to that responsibility.

 

[Faun]

That's simply not true. Now you're just making up shit. Clinton had JARs as high the mid to high 60's before being impeached and left office with JARs in the mid to high 60's.

What's your point? A president gets impeached and leave office with numbers in the 60's. Didn't hurt him very much, did it? Of course, losing his law license for a while and having his handlers pay 90K+ in fines wasn't much fun, but his approval numbers held strong.

I'm still not getting your point? Sounds like you're saying Democrats will win the Executive branch, House and Senate in 2020 and that Trump will vacate the White House in January 2021 with a higher job approval rating than the 45% he currently enjoys.

Sure, good luck with making that happen. I'm not saying anything will happen beyond Trump will be in office until January, 2021. I am saying that impeachment followed by acquittal doesn't seem to harm a president a whole lot. We have unique circumstance here, because Trump is in his first term, unlike Bubba.

LOLOL

I'm not the one saying the party doing the impeaching will win both branches of government while the impeached president will leave office but with higher approval ratings.

You're the one saying that.

Obviously didn't read what I wrote.

Oh? You didn't point out Republicans won the White House, House and Senate after Republicans impeached Clinton? You didn't also claim, albeit falsely, that Clinton left office with high approval ratings than before being impeached?

 

[Faun]

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.

You asked where the Constitution says she had to send it to the Senate. I showed you where it says she does. You lose.

Now you want to move the goalposts.

If she doesn't send it, she is in violation of the Constitution, Fuckwit.

I'm moving nothing. I didn't ask you where the Constitution says she has to send them. That's what you wish I asked you. I asked you where the Constitution "instructs" her to send them. There are no instructions in the Constitution about passing the Articles to the Senate. There is no timeframe. The House can send them whenever they want.

More crawfishing. You lost. If she doesn't send them to the Senate, she is in violation of the Constitution.

Mitch can tell her to pound sand, she has no say in anything the Senate does.

LOLOL

So you say, but you're a dumbfuck. So there's that. In reality, nothing in the Constitution says when she has to send them.

I just posted directly from the Constitution where it does. If she doesn't, he wasn't impeached, Fuckwit.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, this only proves you don't understand what you posted. All it says is the Senate has sole power to try all Impeachments. Nowhere does it compel the House to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate in a timely fashion.

Now she might want to send them before the next session of Congress is seated because they might expire when that happens. Of that I'm not sure; but other than that, Pelosi can take as long as she wants.

Ironically, this is a lot like McConnell refusing confirmation hearings for Obama's SCOTUS nominee. While the Constitution says the Senate advises and consents presidential nominees, it doesn't include any timeframes for when they have to hold confirmation hearings.

Pelosi is now playing by the McConnell Rule.

 

[hadit]

What's your point? A president gets impeached and leave office with numbers in the 60's. Didn't hurt him very much, did it? Of course, losing his law license for a while and having his handlers pay 90K+ in fines wasn't much fun, but his approval numbers held strong.

I'm still not getting your point? Sounds like you're saying Democrats will win the Executive branch, House and Senate in 2020 and that Trump will vacate the White House in January 2021 with a higher job approval rating than the 45% he currently enjoys.

Sure, good luck with making that happen. I'm not saying anything will happen beyond Trump will be in office until January, 2021. I am saying that impeachment followed by acquittal doesn't seem to harm a president a whole lot. We have unique circumstance here, because Trump is in his first term, unlike Bubba.

LOLOL

I'm not the one saying the party doing the impeaching will win both branches of government while the impeached president will leave office but with higher approval ratings.

You're the one saying that.

Obviously didn't read what I wrote.

Oh? You didn't point out Republicans won the White House, House and Senate after Republicans impeached Clinton? You didn't also claim, albeit falsely, that Clinton left office with high approval ratings than before being impeached?

"Expect the same to happen" = "it will happen"?

I have to laugh at your attempts at ever increasing levels of detail. Enjoy yourself, but know that I expect an invigorated Trump with nothing more to fear and a demoralized democrat party that has no clue how to deal with him. Beyond that, make your own predictions, as certain and detailed as you wish.

 

[Nostra]

You asked where the Constitution says she had to send it to the Senate. I showed you where it says she does. You lose.

Now you want to move the goalposts.

If she doesn't send it, she is in violation of the Constitution, Fuckwit.

I'm moving nothing. I didn't ask you where the Constitution says she has to send them. That's what you wish I asked you. I asked you where the Constitution "instructs" her to send them. There are no instructions in the Constitution about passing the Articles to the Senate. There is no timeframe. The House can send them whenever they want.

More crawfishing. You lost. If she doesn't send them to the Senate, she is in violation of the Constitution.

Mitch can tell her to pound sand, she has no say in anything the Senate does.

LOLOL

So you say, but you're a dumbfuck. So there's that. In reality, nothing in the Constitution says when she has to send them.

I just posted directly from the Constitution where it does. If she doesn't, he wasn't impeached, Fuckwit.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, this only proves you don't understand what you posted. All it says is the Senate has sole power to try all Impeachments. Nowhere does it compel the House to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate in a timely fashion.

Now she might want to send them before the next session of Congress is seated because they might expire when that happens. Of that I'm not sure; but other than that, Pelosi can take as long as she wants.

Ironically, this is a lot like McConnell refusing confirmation hearings for Obama's SCOTUS nominee. While the Constitution says the Senate advises and consents presidential nominees, it doesn't include any timeframes for when they have to hold confirmation hearings.

Pelosi is now playing by the McConnell Rule.

It says the Senate "SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY ANY IMPEACHMENT". If she doesn't sent it to them to try, it didn't happen and she is in violation of the Constitution.

You lose again, Halfwit.

 

[Faun]

I'm still not getting your point? Sounds like you're saying Democrats will win the Executive branch, House and Senate in 2020 and that Trump will vacate the White House in January 2021 with a higher job approval rating than the 45% he currently enjoys.

Sure, good luck with making that happen. I'm not saying anything will happen beyond Trump will be in office until January, 2021. I am saying that impeachment followed by acquittal doesn't seem to harm a president a whole lot. We have unique circumstance here, because Trump is in his first term, unlike Bubba.

LOLOL

I'm not the one saying the party doing the impeaching will win both branches of government while the impeached president will leave office but with higher approval ratings.

You're the one saying that.

Obviously didn't read what I wrote.

Oh? You didn't point out Republicans won the White House, House and Senate after Republicans impeached Clinton? You didn't also claim, albeit falsely, that Clinton left office with high approval ratings than before being impeached?

"Expect the same to happen" = "it will happen"?

I have to laugh at your attempts at ever increasing levels of detail. Enjoy yourself, but know that I expect an invigorated Trump with nothing more to fear and a demoralized democrat party that has no clue how to deal with him. Beyond that, make your own predictions, as certain and detailed as you wish.

I make no predictions. I learned my lesson there.

But I like what you're saying about the impeaching party winning the Executive and Legislative branches while the outgoing impeached president leaves office with higher approval ratings

It's a win/win for all!

 

[hadit]

No, seriously. The president is not being tried for criminal charges, and this is not a criminal proceeding because there are no criminal charges. Therefore, the Senate Republicans have a lot more leeway to run things the way they want to. They can, for example, tell Schumer to pound sand because they won't cover for the House doing a sloppy investigation. They can also keep the democrats in session through campaign season if they want to, applying pressure to get a bipartisan acquittal. They have a lot of options.

The president can’t be tried for criminal charges. He can only be impeached. That’s why the courts don’t have a part to play in determining if he is guilty or obstruction. Don’t forget where this is coming from.

If the Senate Republicans want to turn this into a quest for truth into a charade, there’s very little I can do to stop them. But let’s at least acknowledge the fact that they aren’t fulfilling the role the founders intended.

Their role, as intended by the FF, was to TRY the case presented by the House. It is not to cover for sloppy investigative work or to dig up additional information that the House didn't bother to get. It is to try the case as it is presented. You calling that a charade means you don't understand their role at all.

That’s a gross misrepresentation. If that were the case, the House managers would have the ability to call witnesses at the trial. They do not.

That's right, they had the right to call them during the investigation. They're not in control in the Senate, nor should they be. This whole thing was set up deliberately to avoid what the democrats are transparently trying to do, rush impeachment through on strict partisan lines. Face it, if the House managers wanted to call witnesses, they had the opportunity and authority to do just that. It's not the Senate's responsibility to do it for them.

It’s the Senate’s responsibility to have a trail where the facts are heard and a verdict is reached. The Senate Republicans are not indicating they will live up to that responsibility.

It is Pelosi who is putting the case in jeopardy by refusing to send the articles over. Where is your outrage at her tank declaration that she won't live up to her responsibility to have the case tried? The Senate can't do anything until she makes the move, so your complaining about them is false.

 

[Faun]

I'm moving nothing. I didn't ask you where the Constitution says she has to send them. That's what you wish I asked you. I asked you where the Constitution "instructs" her to send them. There are no instructions in the Constitution about passing the Articles to the Senate. There is no timeframe. The House can send them whenever they want.

More crawfishing. You lost. If she doesn't send them to the Senate, she is in violation of the Constitution.

Mitch can tell her to pound sand, she has no say in anything the Senate does.

LOLOL

So you say, but you're a dumbfuck. So there's that. In reality, nothing in the Constitution says when she has to send them.

I just posted directly from the Constitution where it does. If she doesn't, he wasn't impeached, Fuckwit.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, this only proves you don't understand what you posted. All it says is the Senate has sole power to try all Impeachments. Nowhere does it compel the House to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate in a timely fashion.

Now she might want to send them before the next session of Congress is seated because they might expire when that happens. Of that I'm not sure; but other than that, Pelosi can take as long as she wants.

Ironically, this is a lot like McConnell refusing confirmation hearings for Obama's SCOTUS nominee. While the Constitution says the Senate advises and consents presidential nominees, it doesn't include any timeframes for when they have to hold confirmation hearings.

Pelosi is now playing by the McConnell Rule.

It says the Senate "SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY ANY IMPEACHMENT". If she doesn't sent it to them to try, it didn't happen and she is in violation of the Constitution.

You lose again, Halfwit.

Again, who said she's never going to send them?

And he's impeached already. Impeachment is not predicated upon the House sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.

Are you ever not a dumbfuck, dumbfuck?

Ever??