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

[Hutch Starskey]

Exactly. On her timetable.

I seriously doubt he's sitting in his office doing nothing til the paperwork gets to him.

He has other things to keep him occupied in his office, and on the floor of the Senate.

and is likely going home for the holidays.

Sometimes I wonder who turns on you computer for you

You are missing the fact that there will be nothing to proceed with after the break unless this is resolved. Mitch needs this done quickly.

You are missing the fact that there will be nothing to proceed with after the break unless this is resolved.

How do you figure.

Trump is in office til the Senate finds him guilty, well able to approve, or veto, any bills that find their way to his desk.

Nothing regarding impeachment, fool.

Can he submit a bill to change the rules requiring the impeachment paperwork to be in hand to proceed, only needing a majority for it to pass?

Huh?
A bill would have to be approved by the House as well.

Why not just work with Schumer instead?

 

[Nostra]

What has that to do with Pelosi claiming leverage over the Senate?

That meeting was not scheduled before.

McConnell is just humoring him because he knows the turd will start whining like a 2-year-old if he doesn't attend the meeting.

Or, more likely he knows he has to play ball in order to resolve this.

actually, he doesn't have to 'play ball'.

He merely has to take the baton when she passes it to him.



He makes the rules, she has nothing to do with them.

He doesn't make the rules. The rules require a majority vote. You are operating under the assumption that there are automatically the required votes for anything Mitch wants to do. In reality, Mitch only has a four vote buffer. He still has a line to toe.

House rules require a majority vote as well. That didn't keep Nazi, Schifferbrains, and Nadless from ignoring House rules.

 

[Auld Phart]

What has that to do with Pelosi claiming leverage over the Senate?

That meeting was not scheduled before.

McConnell is just humoring him because he knows the turd will start whining like a 2-year-old if he doesn't attend the meeting.

Or, more likely he knows he has to play ball in order to resolve this.

actually, he doesn't have to 'play ball'.

He merely has to take the baton when she passes it to him.



He makes the rules, she has nothing to do with them.

He doesn't make the rules. The rules require a majority vote. You are operating under the assumption that there are automatically the required votes for anything Mitch wants to do. In reality, Mitch only has a four vote buffer. He still has a line to toe.

The rules require a majority vote.

I thought I said that.

He has the power, WITH A MAJORITY VOTE, to change the rules, making Pelosis game moot.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That meeting was not scheduled before.

McConnell is just humoring him because he knows the turd will start whining like a 2-year-old if he doesn't attend the meeting.

Or, more likely he knows he has to play ball in order to resolve this.

actually, he doesn't have to 'play ball'.

He merely has to take the baton when she passes it to him.



He makes the rules, she has nothing to do with them.

He doesn't make the rules. The rules require a majority vote. You are operating under the assumption that there are automatically the required votes for anything Mitch wants to do. In reality, Mitch only has a four vote buffer. He still has a line to toe.

The rules require a majority vote.

I thought I said that.

He has the power, WITH A MAJORITY VOTE, to change the rules, making Pelosis game moot.

You didn't say that at all.

actually, he doesn't have to 'play ball'.

He merely has to take the baton when she passes it to him.



He makes the rules, she has nothing to do with them.

Again. You're assuming that there will be no pressure from his caucus if he goes too far.

 

[Faun]

Thank You! x 1
bigrebnc1775​

So, if prosecutors call forth witnesses at trial, they admit they have insufficient evidence.

Say, you illiterate goofs, do you ever pause for a second to think before rebleating your rightarded talking points

Dems have had their witnesses testify already in the house proceedings

Let me type that very slowly:

Whenever prosecutors call forth witnesses at trial, they admit they have insufficient evidence.

That's the demented talking point you want to run with, while also having your pants down to your ankles?

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

a) Pelosi wasn't calling any witnesses during the inquiry or the hearing. Committee chairmen were.

b) Committee chairman called upon some witnesses who were prevented from testifying by Impeached Trump.

Dems failed to follow the proper proceedure and now you’re holding a big bag of NOTHING

Sorry ‘bout that

Not true again. They issued subpoenas that were not respected. They had 4 choices (or combination of):

1) ignore it
2) have them charged with contempt of Congress
3) tried to get a court to compel them to testify
4) since Trump was blocking them from testifying, charging him with obstruction.

Any of those would have been proper measures. They chose option 4.

 

[Faun]

Presiding over a mock trial that's not binding on Impeached Trump's impeachment would be stepping into a political fight. That's precisely why I posit he wouldn't do it.

Show me where in the Constitution it is mandated that the Senate has to wait for the House:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.​

If Pelosi doesn't formally hand over the Article of Impeachment, McConnell can download them, print them out, and start the trial forthwith. I see nothing that would prevent him from doing that, provided he can get 50 Senators to go along with that procedure. And yes, if that's what the Senate majority chooses to do, as is their Constitutional prerogative, Roberts will preside. All else would amount to disrespect of the Senate.

Of course, we both know that's not what is going to happen. McConnell knows he has to maintain a facade of propriety, which he has considerably undermined already to express his fealty to the Dear Leader. It's just what the autocrat-adulating nitwits on this board fantasize about in order to self-aggrandize.

Wouldn't that be like the Senate voting on a House bill that the House never sent over to them?

The Senate can proceed with the trail

Of course they can. But it will be a mock trial not binding on the articles of impeachment they don't have. Democrats won't participate and likely neither will the Chief Justice.

Might as well have a mock trial since we had a mock impeachment

LOLOL

And by mock impeachment, you mean a duly Constitutionally authorized impeachment which is already cast the record books in tungsten for all time.

 

[Faun]

Thank You! x 1
bigrebnc1775​

So, if prosecutors call forth witnesses at trial, they admit they have insufficient evidence.

Say, you illiterate goofs, do you ever pause for a second to think before rebleating your rightarded talking points

Dems have had their witnesses testify already in the house proceedings

No, they didn't have all their witnesses testify.

Dems could have called all the witnesses they wanted in the House but failed to do so

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

Thats lib illogic to the extreem

pelosi and her flunkies schiff and nadler could have petitioned the courts but chose not to

So?

 

[Auld Phart]

McConnell is just humoring him because he knows the turd will start whining like a 2-year-old if he doesn't attend the meeting.

Or, more likely he knows he has to play ball in order to resolve this.

actually, he doesn't have to 'play ball'.

He merely has to take the baton when she passes it to him.



He makes the rules, she has nothing to do with them.

He doesn't make the rules. The rules require a majority vote. You are operating under the assumption that there are automatically the required votes for anything Mitch wants to do. In reality, Mitch only has a four vote buffer. He still has a line to toe.

The rules require a majority vote.

I thought I said that.

He has the power, WITH A MAJORITY VOTE, to change the rules, making Pelosis game moot.

You didn't say that at all.

actually, he doesn't have to 'play ball'.

He merely has to take the baton when she passes it to him.



He makes the rules, she has nothing to do with them.

Again. You're assuming that there will be no pressure from his caucus if he goes too far.

Can he submit a bill to change the rules requiring the impeachment paperwork to be in hand to proceed, only needing a majority for it to pass?

"Can he submit a bill to change the rules requiring the impeachment paperwork to be in hand to proceed, only needing a majority for it to pass? "

looks like I did


you're assuming there will be.

 

[Nostra]

Dems have had their witnesses testify already in the house proceedings

Let me type that very slowly:

Whenever prosecutors call forth witnesses at trial, they admit they have insufficient evidence.

That's the demented talking point you want to run with, while also having your pants down to your ankles?

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

a) Pelosi wasn't calling any witnesses during the inquiry or the hearing. Committee chairmen were.

b) Committee chairman called upon some witnesses who were prevented from testifying by Impeached Trump.

Dems failed to follow the proper proceedure and now you’re holding a big bag of NOTHING

Sorry ‘bout that

Not true again. They issued subpoenas that were not respected. They had 4 choices (or combination of):

1) ignore it
2) have them charged with contempt of Congress
3) tried to get a court to compel them to testify
4) since Trump was blocking them from testifying, charging him with obstruction.

Any of those would have been proper measures. They chose option 4.

Legal challenges to subpoenas in court is not obstruction, Dummy.

 

[Faun]

Let me type that very slowly:

Whenever prosecutors call forth witnesses at trial, they admit they have insufficient evidence.

That's the demented talking point you want to run with, while also having your pants down to your ankles?

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

a) Pelosi wasn't calling any witnesses during the inquiry or the hearing. Committee chairmen were.

b) Committee chairman called upon some witnesses who were prevented from testifying by Impeached Trump.

Thats naive

of course pelosi was in control of schiff and nadler

as for executive privilege, pelosi could have gone to the courts to secure testimony but chose not to

That's no guarantee those witnesses could have been compelled to testify. Still, you falsely claimed she didn't call every witness she could have. That's not true. Impeached Trump blocked some of their witnesses.

The bottom line is that dems voted to impeach without the evidence they needed to make it stick

Again not true. They already have the evidence to make it stick. They can already show that Impeached Trump used the power of his office to solicit a foreign national to investigate a political rival.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Legal challenges to subpoenas in court is not obstruction, Dummy.

Correct.
The Executive Branch only need respond to -legal- subpoenas; the EB cannot be -forced - to comply until said subpoena is ruled legal by a court.
If the EB - then - refuses to comply, it can be considered obstruction.
But not until.

 

[Faun]

No, they didn't have all their witnesses testify.

Dems could have called all the witnesses they wanted in the House but failed to do so

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

No, they didn't have all their witnesses testify.

Dems could have called all the witnesses they wanted in the House but failed to do so

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

No, they didn't have all their witnesses testify.

Dems could have called all the witnesses they wanted in the House but failed to do so

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

What dems are saying is that grump must waive his constitutional rights as a coequal branch of government

Congress has the authority to subpoena witnesses to conduct investigations. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Impeached Trump blocked that, which led to Article II. Now you come along and falsely claim that Pelosi had all of her witnesses testify.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

Except he doesn't since the Supreme Court had already affirmed the Congresses authority to issue subpoenas for the purpose of investigations. Impeached Trump was just hoping to stall his impeachment until the point it made no sense to impeach him because the election would have been that much sooner, if not passed.

It was a stupid plan that backfired on him. Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

 

[colfax_m]

Legal challenges to subpoenas in court is not obstruction, Dummy.

Correct.
The Executive Branch only need respond to -legal- subpoenas; the EB cannot be -forced - to comply until said subpoena is ruled legal by a court.
If the EB - then - refuses to comply, it can be considered obstruction.
But not until.

There’s nothing “illegal” about a subpoena issued by Congress.

 

[Auld Phart]

Dems could have called all the witnesses they wanted in the House but failed to do so

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

Dems could have called all the witnesses they wanted in the House but failed to do so

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

Dems could have called all the witnesses they wanted in the House but failed to do so

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

What dems are saying is that grump must waive his constitutional rights as a coequal branch of government

Congress has the authority to subpoena witnesses to conduct investigations. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Impeached Trump blocked that, which led to Article II. Now you come along and falsely claim that Pelosi had all of her witnesses testify.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

Except he doesn't since the Supreme Court had already affirmed the Congresses authority to issue subpoenas for the purpose of investigations. Impeached Trump was just hoping to stall his impeachment until the point it made no sense to impeach him because the election would have been that much sooner, if not passed.

It was a stupid plan that backfired on him. Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

 

[jillian]

Good, then we should get testimony from Biden about his threat to cut funding unless the Ukrainians stop investigating his crackhead son.

Normal people don’t do Russian propaganda. Stop it Ilya

 

[Nostra]

Legal challenges to subpoenas in court is not obstruction, Dummy.

Correct.
The Executive Branch only need respond to -legal- subpoenas; the EB cannot be -forced - to comply until said subpoena is ruled legal by a court.
If the EB - then - refuses to comply, it can be considered obstruction.
But not until.

Fawn is too fucking stupid to comprehend that.

 

[jillian]

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

What dems are saying is that grump must waive his constitutional rights as a coequal branch of government

Congress has the authority to subpoena witnesses to conduct investigations. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Impeached Trump blocked that, which led to Article II. Now you come along and falsely claim that Pelosi had all of her witnesses testify.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

Except he doesn't since the Supreme Court had already affirmed the Congresses authority to issue subpoenas for the purpose of investigations. Impeached Trump was just hoping to stall his impeachment until the point it made no sense to impeach him because the election would have been that much sooner, if not passed.

It was a stupid plan that backfired on him. Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Bill served another term you idiot

 

[jillian]

Let me type that very slowly:

Whenever prosecutors call forth witnesses at trial, they admit they have insufficient evidence.

That's the demented talking point you want to run with, while also having your pants down to your ankles?

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

a) Pelosi wasn't calling any witnesses during the inquiry or the hearing. Committee chairmen were.

b) Committee chairman called upon some witnesses who were prevented from testifying by Impeached Trump.

Dems failed to follow the proper proceedure and now you’re holding a big bag of NOTHING

Sorry ‘bout that

Not true again. They issued subpoenas that were not respected. They had 4 choices (or combination of):

1) ignore it
2) have them charged with contempt of Congress
3) tried to get a court to compel them to testify
4) since Trump was blocking them from testifying, charging him with obstruction.

Any of those would have been proper measures. They chose option 4.

Legal challenges to subpoenas in court is not obstruction, Dummy.

Telling your people not to cooperate is.
Imbecile

 

[Auld Phart]

Good, then we should get testimony from Biden about his threat to cut funding unless the Ukrainians stop investigating his crackhead son.

Normal people don’t do Russian propaganda. Stop it Ilya

Normal people don’t do Russian propaganda.

 

[Faun]

Good luck getting Roberts to preside over a mock trial.

Roberts, following his Constitutional obligation, is going to preside over whatever Schumer and McConnell end up agreeing upon, and also what McConnell will set up in case no agreement can be reached, and he'll meticulously follow the rules, no matter what they are.

He'll be happy as a clam if he can get out of that all in a matter of hours, rather than weeks or months, and he'll let McConnell and Schumer deal with the fall-out, again, no matter what it is.

You seem to mistake Roberts for someone eager to get into a political fight, or let himself be seen disrespecting in any way, shape or form, another branch of government. If so, I am convinced that is wrong.

Presiding over a mock trial that's not binding on Impeached Trump's impeachment would be stepping into a political fight. That's precisely why I posit he wouldn't do it.

Show me where in the Constitution it is mandated that the Senate has to wait for the House:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.​

If Pelosi doesn't formally hand over the Article of Impeachment, McConnell can download them, print them out, and start the trial forthwith. I see nothing that would prevent him from doing that, provided he can get 50 Senators to go along with that procedure. And yes, if that's what the Senate majority chooses to do, as is their Constitutional prerogative, Roberts will preside. All else would amount to disrespect of the Senate.

Of course, we both know that's not what is going to happen. McConnell knows he has to maintain a facade of propriety, which he has considerably undermined already to express his fealty to the Dear Leader. It's just what the autocrat-adulating nitwits on this board fantasize about in order to self-aggrandize.

Wouldn't that be like the Senate voting on a House bill that the House never sent over to them?

So you agree he has yet to be impeached.

Why would I agree with that since impeachment happens solely in the House and the articles passed? At that moment, he's impeached. Pertsining to that, it matters not when the House sends the articles to the Senate.