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

[White 6]

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.

Validity of outing the whistle blower at the Senate trial might be one of the procedural things that comes up. Going to be interesting.

 

[MAGAman]

That's an option.

Here's another.

He announces that the Bitch has 48 hours to deliver the articles or he wipes impeachment off ov his calendar and replaces it with judicial confirmations.

I like both.

 

[MAGAman]

Your view of what the outcome will be on voters is meaningless, you have zero objectivity.

So, how much do you know about the slew of bills that were passed the last week while these groups that pretend to hate each came together to pass them and be signed by a president...who signed two bills despite making a promise never to sign that sort of bill again?

How is is that people that hate each other so very much are able to magically create a massive bill to fuck with our retirement system, get it passed in both the House and the Senate and have the POTUS sign it?

Eek. You got me. Politics on a macro level is Zero Net Sum. But not on an individual campaign level...

That does rearrange a few chess pieces....

Well done.

 

[Mike473]

Mitch tells Pelosi that the Senate will set the rules as it pleases. Pelosi refuses to send Articles. Mitch states that since Pelosi won't send the Articles, we will leave it to the people in November. The Senate has the Constitutional authority to conduct the trial, and Pelosi has no say in the matter.

Either Pelosi send the Articles and Mitch moves to dismiss. Or, Pelosi never sends them and it is all over at that point. Then the people decide who is right.

McConnell has all the cards here.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Eek. You got me. Politics on a macro level is Zero Net Sum. But not on an individual campaign level...

That does rearrange a few chess pieces....

Well done.

The individual campaign level is all for show, it is all there to give the illusion of choice and power.

 

[MAGAman]

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

Then Shifft lied, which is believable. But also he obstructed Congress.

 

[MAGAman]

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.

100% false. You are either lying or you need more news sources.

Exactly ZERO witnesses, including Sondland said they heard Trump do anything wrong. Sondland "felt" it was wrong and testified that Trump never uttered a quid pro quo.

They all also testified that the transcript that exonerates Trump was accurate.

You're watching too much MSTDS.

 

[MAGAman]

The individual campaign level is all for show, it is all there to give the illusion of choice and power.

What?

Are you doing the "No difference between parties" thing?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The individual campaign level is all for show, it is all there to give the illusion of choice and power.

What?

Are you doing the "No difference between parties" thing?

Cosmetic difference over a couple social issues. Fundamentally they are the same and fiscally they are the same.

Look at the bills they magically produced last week and try and tell me they are different.

 

[MAGAman]

Cosmetic difference over a couple social issues. Fundamentally they are the same and fiscally they are the same.

Look at the bills they magically produced last week and try and tell me they are different.

Obamacare isn't cosmetic.

The GOP tax cuts/reforms weren't cosmetic.

The Trump/GOP defense bills were not cosmetic.

The judges confirmed aren't cosmetic.

Open borders aren't cosmetic.

The difference in NAFTA 2.0 before and after Democrats got what they wanted isn't cosmetic.

The attempted coup isn't cosmetic.

You can keep your head in the sand all you want, but things happen all around you proving you wrong.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Obamacare isn't cosmetic.

ObamaCare was modeled after a Repub plan.

The GOP tax cuts/reforms weren't cosmetic.

The Trump/GOP defense bills were not cosmetic.

Spending money we do not have is a hallmark of both parties, if they differ it is what they want to spend our kids money on.

The judges confirmed aren't cosmetic.

How much do you know about 99% of the judges that have been confirmed?

Open borders aren't cosmetic.

We do not have open borders, and for the last 50 years there has been no difference in the parties. Even now most of the differences are just in rhetoric.

The difference in NAFTA 2.0 before and after Democrats got what they wanted isn't cosmetic.

Yes they were, in fact the differences between NAFTA and USMCA are basically cosmetic.

The attempted coup isn't cosmetic.

.

There was no coup. There was great drama to keep the masses enthralled.

 

[MAGAman]

Obamacare isn't cosmetic.

ObamaCare was modeled after a Repub plan.

The GOP tax cuts/reforms weren't cosmetic.

The Trump/GOP defense bills were not cosmetic.

Spending money we do not have is a hallmark of both parties, if they differ it is what they want to spend our kids money on.

The judges confirmed aren't cosmetic.

How much do you know about 99% of the judges that have been confirmed?

Open borders aren't cosmetic.

We do not have open borders, and for the last 50 years there has been no difference in the parties. Even now most of the differences are just in rhetoric.

The difference in NAFTA 2.0 before and after Democrats got what they wanted isn't cosmetic.

Yes they were, in fact the differences between NAFTA and USMCA are basically cosmetic.

The attempted coup isn't cosmetic.

.

There was no coup. There was great drama to keep the masses enthralled.

Obamacare was a monstrosity modeled after Obama's ego. You can't take a 3000 page law and say it was modeled after a magazine article and therefore both parties are the same. It's both dishonest and stupid.

Spending money on welfare for illegals vs spending it on national defense is not a cosmetic difference.

I haven't checked the judges histories, but the Democrats that did hate them, and the Republicans that did like or love them. The difference in the Judges is not cosmetic. The difference in Scalia and RGB is not cosmetic.

There was an attempted coup. It was designed to muck up Trump and bring in Biden/Warren/Whomever. Their differences are not cosmetic.

You people that pretend that there's no difference in parties are so easily duped.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

When has that bitch been right about anything?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MAGAman]

When has that bitch been right about anything?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Before AOC dragged her into impeachement.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

When has that bitch been right about anything?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Before AOC dragged her into impeachement.

Yeah,
She was a victim of another adolescent imbecile.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Obamacare was a monstrosity modeled after Obama's ego. You can't take a 3000 page law and say it was modeled after a magazine article and therefore both parties are the same. It's both dishonest and stupid.

And yet it is still here after all this time.

Spending money on welfare for illegals vs spending it on national defense is not a cosmetic difference.

Spending more money than you have is spending more money than you have. The justification for doing so is meaningless.

I haven't checked the judges histories, but the Democrats that did hate them, and the Republicans that did like or love them. The difference in the Judges is not cosmetic. The difference in Scalia and RGB is not cosmetic.

Yes, there was lots of love and hate going on...almost like it was a play or something.

There was an attempted coup. It was designed to muck up Trump and bring in Biden/Warren/Whomever. Their differences are not cosmetic.

There as no coup, attempted or otherwise. The government was not going to be overthrown.

You people that pretend that there's no difference in parties are so easily duped.

It is you people beholden to the duopoly that have been duped. You are like Dorthy when she arrived in the Emerald City.

 

[MAGAman]

Obamacare was a monstrosity modeled after Obama's ego. You can't take a 3000 page law and say it was modeled after a magazine article and therefore both parties are the same. It's both dishonest and stupid.

And yet it is still here after all this time.

Spending money on welfare for illegals vs spending it on national defense is not a cosmetic difference.

Spending more money than you have is spending more money than you have. The justification for doing so is meaningless.

I haven't checked the judges histories, but the Democrats that did hate them, and the Republicans that did like or love them. The difference in the Judges is not cosmetic. The difference in Scalia and RGB is not cosmetic.

Yes, there was lots of love and hate going on...almost like it was a play or something.

There was an attempted coup. It was designed to muck up Trump and bring in Biden/Warren/Whomever. Their differences are not cosmetic.

There as no coup, attempted or otherwise. The government was not going to be overthrown.

You people that pretend that there's no difference in parties are so easily duped.

It is you people beholden to the duopoly that have been duped. You are like Dorthy when she arrived in the Emerald City.

I can't believe you're actually ignorant enough to suggest that the GOP would have passed Obamacare, or that Obamacare didn't change anything.

You're so far up your own ass you can't see the world.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I can't believe you're actually ignorant enough to suggest that the GOP would have passed Obamacare, or that Obamacare didn't change anything.

You're so far up your own ass you can't see the world.

ObamaCare changed everything, it is the main reason I rate Obama as the 2nd worst POTUS ever. But that does not change that it was modeled after a Repub plan or that the Repubs once it was there have not done a damn thing to get rid of it.

Why is it it still the law of the land?

 

[hadit]

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.

Where is the timetable established in the Constitution? I know they have to stay in session 6 days a week, and McConnell has enormous leverage in simply letting it be known that he'll keep the trial going until a bunch of democrats vote for acquittal. They'll do it so they can campaign. But I don't think they have to take it up immediately. Perhaps you could quote that part.

 

[hadit]

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.

Validity of outing the whistle blower at the Senate trial might be one of the procedural things that comes up. Going to be interesting.

It is fun to watch the contortions of the usual suspects when they insist that SOME new witnesses absolutely must be called because the House failed to call them, but THIS witness must never be called, for reasons and stuff and just shut up.