The Impeachment Thread

#34,201
#34,201
luthervol said:
They are not going to set rules and then change them to undermine Roberts. Many are already sick of having to act like they support Trump. Most would love nothing more than to be rid of Trump without having to sacrifice their own career.
Click to expand...

I don’t think they would change the rules to undermine Roberts either. They will set the rules they want from the beginning and he will have little to no say in the proceedings, just like Justice Rehnquist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#34,202
#34,202
volfanhill said:
He’s given the rules to follow by the senate vote on what the rules are. He had autonomy to vote on issues senators bring up that they claim are not in guideline with the rules. The senators can also vote to change the rules. His job is to insure that the voted upon rules are followed.
Click to expand...
Actually the Senate and the Sargent at arms are the enforcers of the rules the role of the Presiding officer - shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate chamber, and the presiding officer upon the trial shall direct all the forms of proceeding while the Senate are sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for.

Someone has to control this circus.
 
#34,203
#34,203
hog88 said:
I don’t think they would change the rules to undermine Roberts either. They will set the rules they want from the beginning and he will have little to no say in the proceedings, just like Justice Rehnquist.
Click to expand...

It’s amusing to watch the frothing over how smart and how clever Pelosi is in the house , and the next month it’s like Mitch McConnell won’t have a clue what to do , and what will be taking place in the Senate .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and volfanjustin
#34,204
#34,204
hog88 said:
the senate has the power to alter/change the rules they set at any time. How am I contradicting myself?
Click to expand...
You said senators can alter (change) any rule they wish.
I said senators are not going to change (alter) the rules to undermine Roberts.
You said senators set the rules so they are not changing (altering) the rules.

So if they set a rule and then change (alter) that rule, they are in fact changing (altering) the rules which is what I said they would not be willing to do; which is what you took exception to by saying they set the rules so they are not changing the rules.
 
#34,206
#34,206
Mick said:
Actually the Senate and the Sargent at arms are the enforcers of the rules the role of the Presiding officer - shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate chamber, and the presiding officer upon the trial shall direct all the forms of proceeding while the Senate are sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for.

Someone has to control this circus.
Click to expand...

Lol. What a hypocrite.
 
#34,208
#34,208
vols40 said:
Then why are the words Quid pro quo nor bribery not in the articles of impeachment ? And they said Obama broke the law with the deserter Burgdohl and nothing happened
Click to expand...
Trump's misconduct is explicitly spelled out in the articles of impeachment. An act of bribery is detailed, whether the word itself is used or not.
 
#34,210
#34,210
luthervol said:
You said senators can alter (change) any rule they wish.
I said senators are not going to change (alter) the rules to undermine Roberts.
You said senators set the rules so they are not changing (altering) the rules.

So if they set a rule and then change (alter) that rule, they are in fact changing (altering) the rules which is what I said they would not be willing to do; which is what you took exception to by saying they set the rules so they are not changing the rules.
Click to expand...

You‘re getting as bad as Huff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#34,211
#34,211
BowlBrother85 said:
One of the articles of impeachment against Nixon was also Abuse of Power. Trump wasn't interested in rooting out corruption in the Ukraine. He was only interested in President Zelensky announcing an investigation into the Bidens... in order to damage Joe Biden politically.
Click to expand...
Keep sayin it till it's true. Click your heels together three times? Rub the lamp?
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40 and StarRaider
#34,213
#34,213
Mick said:
Actually the Senate and the Sargent at arms are the enforcers of the rules the role of the Presiding officer - shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate chamber, and the presiding officer upon the trial shall direct all the forms of proceeding while the Senate are sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for.

Someone has to control this circus.
Click to expand...
Yes they set decorum. But the rules as determined are set by the majority of senate votes. Chief Justice opinion nor the Sargent at arms opinion matter when it comes to setting them. They are just the refs. And the Senate can vote to change the rules even after they are set.
 
#34,214
#34,214
Mick said:
Actually the Senate and the Sargent at arms are the enforcers of the rules the role of the Presiding officer - shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate chamber, and the presiding officer upon the trial shall direct all the forms of proceeding while the Senate are sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for.

Someone has to control this circus.
Click to expand...
Too bad no one did in the House
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and SpaceCoastVol
#34,216
#34,216
Mick said:
Actually the Senate and the Sargent at arms are the enforcers of the rules the role of the Presiding officer - shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate chamber, and the presiding officer upon the trial shall direct all the forms of proceeding while the Senate are sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for.

Someone has to control this circus.
Click to expand...
What exactly do you really and truly expect to come out of this?
 
#34,217
#34,217
volfanhill said:
Yes they set decorum. But the rules as determined are set by the majority of senate votes. Chief Justice opinion nor the Sargent at arms opinion matter when it comes to setting them. They are just the refs. And the Senate can vote to change the rules even after they are set.
Click to expand...

They can’t accept the L they’re gonna take no matter what.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
#34,219
#34,219
BowlBrother85 said:
One of the articles of impeachment against Nixon was also Abuse of Power. Trump wasn't interested in rooting out corruption in the Ukraine. He was only interested in President Zelensky announcing an investigation into the Bidens... in order to damage Joe Biden politically.
Click to expand...

Ok on the slim chance you are right and you obviously aren't because Nixon resigned and was not impeached. Had he been impeached the first charge/crime would have been obstruction of Justice. Very different from we can't wait for courts to rule on executive privelage so we charge you with obstruction of Congress. And 2nd how do you thought police prove that the president was not looking into corruption? Give specifics? Delaying aid that got released is not specific. The aid got released. There is no mention of releasing aid being an impeachable offense. Aid should be withheld with regularity with all Presidents. Its good policy to lay out expectations when you give someone something.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, tennvols77 and SpaceCoastVol
#34,221
#34,221
luthervol said:
What would have been right.
Think UT's hiring of Dooley.
Click to expand...
That was part of the question to you. Compared to what?

You're a moral relativist that bases morality in social acceptance. However, all you do anymore is melt down about how wrong society was to choose the president we have.

Translation: You're acting like a baby that wastes time bemoaning the fact that you didn't get your way.
 
#34,222
#34,222
BowlBrother85 said:
Trump's misconduct is explicitly spelled out in the articles of impeachment. An act of bribery is detailed, whether the word itself is used or not.
Click to expand...
Spin all were heard was quid pro quo until Sondland says the president said no quid pro quo. Then Nance pivoted to bribery but it's but in the articles. Using this logic a DA would charge a suspected murderer with excessive force. You really should say it loud what your thinking.
 
#34,224
#34,224
hog88 said:
All of them thought that Roberts was going to come in and set the rules and take charge like he would in a normal courtroom.
Click to expand...

If that was the case Pelosi wouldn’t have had to try that quid pro quo she attempted . I don’t see how you couldn’t understand that .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top