So if Pelosi is right and Trump is impeached, McTurtle can dismiss or try Trump anytime he wants.

[occupied]

I'm kind of rooting for Mitch to totally go all in for Trump. To really show just how much republicans are willing to put president over party over country.

The narrative has already been set that ANY result other than conviction will be called invalid by the usual suspects.

That's because McConnell said he's going to be working with the White House to coordinate Trump's acquittal. Funny how we would get that idea.

No, that was set long ago, when it was revealed how weak the case against Trump really was.

The case is ironclad. Trump's entire defense is "So what? I can do what I want".

Within his powers, he can.

It is the job of congressional oversight to keep the president in his lane even if they have to impeach him to do it.

 

[occupied]

I think the strategy here should be pretty clear to the Republicans now. Based on how Pelosi is handling this, there is no urgency to do anything in the senate.

Mitch McConnell should announce that he will not hold a trial and will instead let the people be the jury in November 2020. He should state that it appears that Pelosi is not in any rush to proceed and may go forward with additional Articles per court filings. That being the case, we will let the people decide on these matters. The rationale should be that the issues at stake are completely partisan and are best left to the people. Case closed.

The constitution requires the Senate to immediately take up the articles and stay in session 6 days a week until the matter is resolved. Pelosi could have really fucked up Christmas for them.

 

[Ame®icano]

The narrative has already been set that ANY result other than conviction will be called invalid by the usual suspects.

That's because McConnell said he's going to be working with the White House to coordinate Trump's acquittal. Funny how we would get that idea.

No, that was set long ago, when it was revealed how weak the case against Trump really was.

The case is ironclad. Trump's entire defense is "So what? I can do what I want".

Within his powers, he can.

It is the job of congressional oversight to keep the president in his lane even if they have to impeach him to do it.

That still doesn't refute what I said.

Beside, ever heard of separation of powers? Congress too have to follow the Constitution.

 

[Dragonlady]

Per Article 1 of the Constitution:

1. The House has the Sole authority to impeach.

2.The Senate has the Sole authority to try all Impeachments.

So either:

A. Trump hasn't been impeached yet
or
B. McTurtle can dismiss, or try Trump with any rules he chooses anytime he gets a hair up his ass.

There are no other options.

McConnell cannot dismiss without a vote.

70% of all Americans, including 60% of Trump's base, want a trial with witnesses and evidence. If McConnell successfully dismisses without a trial, the Republican Party will have signed its own death certificate.

Republicans promised the American voter that if they elected Donald Trump, Republicans would save the nation from Trump's worst impulses, and keep him in check, if they voted for a Republican House and Senate. Republicans renigged utterly on that promise and did NOTHING to stop Trump from separating children from their families, or locking up 40,000 illegals in internment camps without trial or due process.

All of these arrests and holding of illegals has benefitted the biggest donors to Trump's "Inauguration Fund" - the for profit prisons which are getting $700 per day, per prisoner to hold them in filthy, unsafe conditions, that violate the Constitution, the UN Refugee provisions which the USA has codified into law, and just basic human decency.

Real Americans want a President who isn't a national embarassment, and that means anyone other than Trump.

 

[Ame®icano]

Holding Articles of Impeachment in the House does nothing.

If the Senate doesn’t get a chance to try Trump then Trump hasn’t been impeached.

 

[occupied]

That's because McConnell said he's going to be working with the White House to coordinate Trump's acquittal. Funny how we would get that idea.

No, that was set long ago, when it was revealed how weak the case against Trump really was.

The case is ironclad. Trump's entire defense is "So what? I can do what I want".

Within his powers, he can.

It is the job of congressional oversight to keep the president in his lane even if they have to impeach him to do it.

That still doesn't refute what I said.

Beside, ever heard of separation of powers? Congress too have to follow the Constitution.

Despite all Trump's complaints congress has studiously acted within it's assigned powers. The same cannot be said of Trump. Like most republican presidents he continually tests the limits of his office. He was getting away with it too but he just had to fuck with the election.

 

[Ame®icano]

Per Article 1 of the Constitution:

1. The House has the Sole authority to impeach.

2.The Senate has the Sole authority to try all Impeachments.

So either:

A. Trump hasn't been impeached yet
or
B. McTurtle can dismiss, or try Trump with any rules he chooses anytime he gets a hair up his ass.

There are no other options.

McConnell cannot dismiss without a vote.

70% of all Americans, including 60% of Trump's base, want a trial with witnesses and evidence. If McConnell successfully dismisses without a trial, the Republican Party will have signed its own death certificate.

Republicans promised the American voter that if they elected Donald Trump, Republicans would save the nation from Trump's worst impulses, and keep him in check, if they voted for a Republican House and Senate. Republicans renigged utterly on that promise and did NOTHING to stop Trump from separating children from their families, or locking up 40,000 illegals in internment camps without trial or due process.

All of these arrests and holding of illegals has benefitted the biggest donors to Trump's "Inauguration Fund" - the for profit prisons which are getting $700 per day, per prisoner to hold them in filthy, unsafe conditions, that violate the Constitution, the UN Refugee provisions which the USA has codified into law, and just basic human decency.

Real Americans want a President who isn't a national embarassment, and that means anyone other than Trump.

Being national embarrassment from days of slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, KKK, etc, Democrats have no say in declaring who the embarrassment is. When you acknowledge your past, and apologize for it, maybe we can start talking about how much of reparations Democrats should pay out of their own pockets.

 

[whitehall]

Watch out when the crazy left starts quoting articles of the Constitution. In a left wing fantasy an insane Senate could try the President without articles of impeachment but only the clinically insane would want to go down the road to anarchy.

 

[Ame®icano]

No, that was set long ago, when it was revealed how weak the case against Trump really was.

The case is ironclad. Trump's entire defense is "So what? I can do what I want".

Within his powers, he can.

It is the job of congressional oversight to keep the president in his lane even if they have to impeach him to do it.

That still doesn't refute what I said.

Beside, ever heard of separation of powers? Congress too have to follow the Constitution.

Despite all Trump's complaints congress has studiously acted within it's assigned powers. The same cannot be said of Trump. Like most republican presidents he continually tests the limits of his office. He was getting away with it too but he just had to fuck with the election.

First of, you haven't answered my question, and you kept yapping for the sake of yapping.

Let's see.

If House Democrats goal was to remove the president that they said has committed the crime, it's their duty to prove he did it and sent the Articles to the Senate. By refusing to complete the process they either know that President is not guilty, or they doing it for the purpose of damaging him in 2020 elections.

Here is the article from Politico, and notice the date... April 17, 2016.

Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office?

Craig Stevens, a former George W. Bush spokesman, said the specter of a Trump impeachment fight actually serves both Democrats and “probably some Republicans” well as they try to hit the reset button ahead of the next presidential campaign cycle. “Even if [Trump] becomes the greatest president of the modern era, I think some would use [impeachment] as a rhetorical device going into 2020,” he said.

The Democrat goal was to impeach the president just before the election cycle, and it doesn't matter if that was Trump or any other Republican, they were planning what they're doing now all along.

 

[hadit]

There are no impartial Senators.

I'm kind of rooting for Mitch to totally go all in for Trump. To really show just how much republicans are willing to put president over party over country.

The narrative has already been set that ANY result other than conviction will be called invalid by the usual suspects.

That's because McConnell said he's going to be working with the White House to coordinate Trump's acquittal. Funny how we would get that idea.

No, that was set long ago, when it was revealed how weak the case against Trump really was.

The case is ironclad. Trump's entire defense is "So what? I can do what I want".

Second hand is not ironclad, especially when the first hand witness said it didn't happen.

 

[Ame®icano]

I'm kind of rooting for Mitch to totally go all in for Trump. To really show just how much republicans are willing to put president over party over country.

The narrative has already been set that ANY result other than conviction will be called invalid by the usual suspects.

That's because McConnell said he's going to be working with the White House to coordinate Trump's acquittal. Funny how we would get that idea.

No, that was set long ago, when it was revealed how weak the case against Trump really was.

The case is ironclad. Trump's entire defense is "So what? I can do what I want".

Second hand is not ironclad, especially when the first hand witness said it didn't happen.

Question: What if there is no whistleblower, but Schiff got information from NSA or from the foreign source?

 

[hadit]

The narrative has already been set that ANY result other than conviction will be called invalid by the usual suspects.

That's because McConnell said he's going to be working with the White House to coordinate Trump's acquittal. Funny how we would get that idea.

No, that was set long ago, when it was revealed how weak the case against Trump really was.

The case is ironclad. Trump's entire defense is "So what? I can do what I want".

Second hand is not ironclad, especially when the first hand witness said it didn't happen.

Question: What if there is no whistleblower, but Schiff got information from NSA or from the foreign source?

Then he needs to identify where he got it from so the source can be vetted for veracity.

 

[Dragonlady]

I'm kind of rooting for Mitch to totally go all in for Trump. To really show just how much republicans are willing to put president over party over country.

The narrative has already been set that ANY result other than conviction will be called invalid by the usual suspects.

That's because McConnell said he's going to be working with the White House to coordinate Trump's acquittal. Funny how we would get that idea.

No, that was set long ago, when it was revealed how weak the case against Trump really was.

The case is ironclad. Trump's entire defense is "So what? I can do what I want".

Second hand is not ironclad, especially when the first hand witness said it didn't happen.

First hand witnesses ALL said it happened. Sondland, Volker and Morrison admitted their parts in it. Vidland and Pence's assistant were in on the call and both reported it. The other State Department witnesses heard the call between Sondland and Trump.

 

[Ame®icano]

That's because McConnell said he's going to be working with the White House to coordinate Trump's acquittal. Funny how we would get that idea.

No, that was set long ago, when it was revealed how weak the case against Trump really was.

The case is ironclad. Trump's entire defense is "So what? I can do what I want".

Second hand is not ironclad, especially when the first hand witness said it didn't happen.

Question: What if there is no whistleblower, but Schiff got information from NSA or from the foreign source?

Then he needs to identify where he got it from so the source can be vetted for veracity.

Where he got it from?

Remember that just days before leaving office, Barry changed the rules about NSA sharing the information with other intelligence agencies? Few months before he also appointed Robert Storch as new NSA IG, which is unusual since NSA IG is normally appointed by the director of NSA. Senate never confirmed him.

What interesting is that the same Robert Storch was offered a job in Ukraine by then president Poroshenko, to lead the anti-corruption office there. It's the same Robert Storch who just happen to be a person who received whistleblower complaint that kicked off impeachment inquiry.

He is Barry's holdover, just as Horowitz is and regardless of Horrowitz testifying in Senate about FISA abuse in favor of Trump and against the FBI, is doubt that he provided all the information his audit recovered.

Just a thought.

 

[Ame®icano]

The narrative has already been set that ANY result other than conviction will be called invalid by the usual suspects.

That's because McConnell said he's going to be working with the White House to coordinate Trump's acquittal. Funny how we would get that idea.

No, that was set long ago, when it was revealed how weak the case against Trump really was.

The case is ironclad. Trump's entire defense is "So what? I can do what I want".

Second hand is not ironclad, especially when the first hand witness said it didn't happen.

First hand witnesses ALL said it happened. Sondland, Volker and Morrison admitted their parts in it. Vidland and Pence's assistant were in on the call and both reported it. The other State Department witnesses heard the call between Sondland and Trump.

Is that truth or you heard it on CNN?

 

[White 6]

No, that was set long ago, when it was revealed how weak the case against Trump really was.

The case is ironclad. Trump's entire defense is "So what? I can do what I want".

Second hand is not ironclad, especially when the first hand witness said it didn't happen.

Question: What if there is no whistleblower, but Schiff got information from NSA or from the foreign source?

Then he needs to identify where he got it from so the source can be vetted for veracity.

Where he got it from?

Remember that just days before leaving office, Barry changed the rules about NSA sharing the information with other intelligence agencies? Few months before he also appointed Robert Storch as new NSA IG, which is unusual since NSA IG is normally appointed by the director of NSA. Senate never confirmed him.

What interesting is that the same Robert Storch was offered a job in Ukraine by then president Poroshenko, to lead the anti-corruption office there. It's the same Robert Storch who just happen to be a person who received whistleblower complaint that kicked off impeachment inquiry.

He is Barry's holdover, just as Horowitz is and regardless of Horrowitz testifying in Senate about FISA abuse in favor of Trump and against the FBI, is doubt that he provided all the information his audit recovered.

Just a thought.

The republicans could force Roberts to rule as to whether the protected whistle blower must testify. That could be interesting.

 

[Ame®icano]

The case is ironclad. Trump's entire defense is "So what? I can do what I want".

Second hand is not ironclad, especially when the first hand witness said it didn't happen.

Question: What if there is no whistleblower, but Schiff got information from NSA or from the foreign source?

Then he needs to identify where he got it from so the source can be vetted for veracity.

Where he got it from?

Remember that just days before leaving office, Barry changed the rules about NSA sharing the information with other intelligence agencies? Few months before he also appointed Robert Storch as new NSA IG, which is unusual since NSA IG is normally appointed by the director of NSA. Senate never confirmed him.

What interesting is that the same Robert Storch was offered a job in Ukraine by then president Poroshenko, to lead the anti-corruption office there. It's the same Robert Storch who just happen to be a person who received whistleblower complaint that kicked off impeachment inquiry.

He is Barry's holdover, just as Horowitz is and regardless of Horrowitz testifying in Senate about FISA abuse in favor of Trump and against the FBI, is doubt that he provided all the information his audit recovered.

Just a thought.

The republicans could force Roberts to rule as to whether the protected whistle blower must testify. That could be interesting.

It's up to Senate, not Roberts.

 

[toobfreak]

I suppose he can try. He's already shown his willingness to put in the fix for the president. Might as well abandon all pretense of impartiality.

He might as well go for it. The House has already shown the intent to convict long long ago even before gathering evidence having long since abandoning ever having even a facade of impartiality.

 

[White 6]

Second hand is not ironclad, especially when the first hand witness said it didn't happen.

Question: What if there is no whistleblower, but Schiff got information from NSA or from the foreign source?

Then he needs to identify where he got it from so the source can be vetted for veracity.

Where he got it from?

Remember that just days before leaving office, Barry changed the rules about NSA sharing the information with other intelligence agencies? Few months before he also appointed Robert Storch as new NSA IG, which is unusual since NSA IG is normally appointed by the director of NSA. Senate never confirmed him.

What interesting is that the same Robert Storch was offered a job in Ukraine by then president Poroshenko, to lead the anti-corruption office there. It's the same Robert Storch who just happen to be a person who received whistleblower complaint that kicked off impeachment inquiry.

He is Barry's holdover, just as Horowitz is and regardless of Horrowitz testifying in Senate about FISA abuse in favor of Trump and against the FBI, is doubt that he provided all the information his audit recovered.

Just a thought.

The republicans could force Roberts to rule as to whether the protected whistle blower must testify. That could be interesting.

It's up to Senate, not Roberts.

Roberts presides over the trial to an extent.
Guide to the Constitution
The second question is the extent of the Chief Justice's authority as presiding officer to render unilateral rulings. In the first presidential impeachment trial in 1868, Chief Justice Salmon Chase claimed the authority to decide certain procedural questions on his own, but the Senate challenged several of his rulings and overruled him at least twice. In President Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist ruled on some procedural questions, but the Senate never challenged, much less overruled, any of these rulings.

True, they might vote to overrule Roberts, but the blow-back from the electorate for what "they" feel could be disastrous for the party and Trumps re-election. Kind of like winning the battle but losing the war.

It's going to interesting. I love watching history in the making.

 

[Ame®icano]

Question: What if there is no whistleblower, but Schiff got information from NSA or from the foreign source?

Then he needs to identify where he got it from so the source can be vetted for veracity.

Where he got it from?

Remember that just days before leaving office, Barry changed the rules about NSA sharing the information with other intelligence agencies? Few months before he also appointed Robert Storch as new NSA IG, which is unusual since NSA IG is normally appointed by the director of NSA. Senate never confirmed him.

What interesting is that the same Robert Storch was offered a job in Ukraine by then president Poroshenko, to lead the anti-corruption office there. It's the same Robert Storch who just happen to be a person who received whistleblower complaint that kicked off impeachment inquiry.

He is Barry's holdover, just as Horowitz is and regardless of Horrowitz testifying in Senate about FISA abuse in favor of Trump and against the FBI, is doubt that he provided all the information his audit recovered.

Just a thought.

The republicans could force Roberts to rule as to whether the protected whistle blower must testify. That could be interesting.

It's up to Senate, not Roberts.

Roberts presides over the trial to an extent.
Guide to the Constitution
The second question is the extent of the Chief Justice's authority as presiding officer to render unilateral rulings. In the first presidential impeachment trial in 1868, Chief Justice Salmon Chase claimed the authority to decide certain procedural questions on his own, but the Senate challenged several of his rulings and overruled him at least twice. In President Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist ruled on some procedural questions, but the Senate never challenged, much less overruled, any of these rulings.

True, they might vote to overrule Roberts, but the blow-back from the electorate for what "they" feel could be disastrous for the party and Trumps re-election. Kind of like winning the battle but losing the war.

It's going to interesting. I love watching history in the making.

It seems you're mixing up "rules of the Senate" with "judge ruling".

Justice presiding the trial normally follows the Senate rules in order to bring up his own rulings. Two different things.