The Impeachment Thread

#34,153
#34,153
Mick said:
My understanding is nobody has an understanding and for you to say you understand is laughable.
Click to expand...
It’s not that difficult. Senate votes on rules. Roberts role is mainly ceremonial unless someone questions if the votes upon rules have been violated. Then he makes a decision.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#34,155
#34,155
BowlBrother85 said:
That Trump was a political outsider who would "drain the swamp". Remember that chant? It was in every rally and rings hollow for a President who has had such people as Scott Pruitt, Tom Price, Ryan Zinke, Wilbur Ross, Betsy Devos and Elaine Chao in his cabinet.
Click to expand...

Update: We Found a “Staggering” 281 Lobbyists Who’ve Worked in the Trump Administration — ProPublica

The ‘Swamp’ Trump Is Draining: Expertise | Washington Monthly

Michael Lewis: “Instead of Draining the Swamp, Trump Has Filled It With Slithery Green Creatures”
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol and BowlBrother85
#34,158
#34,158
volfanhill said:
It’s not that difficult. Senate votes on rules. Roberts roll is mainly ceremonial unless someone questions if the votes upon rules have been violated. Then he makes a decision.
Click to expand...
Chief Justice shall preside over the Senate during the consideration of said articles, and upon the trial of the person impeached therein. The presiding officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself ,all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules, or by the Senate. The Senate sets the rules with majority vote and only two people can enforce the rules. One is the Chief Justice and the other is the Secretary of the Senate. These two people can operate independently of one another That's my interpretation of the Constitutional power if the presiding officer . When it says "by himself" there wasn't a qualifier of unless overruled by the people being presided over. That would defeat the purpose of even having someone preside over it.
 
#34,160
#34,160
newarkvol said:
"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law."

The truth is worse. The funds were not withheld for a policy reason, but for the personal, corrupt gain of "Drump Quid Pro Quo," who tried to clumsily bribe and extort his way in a second election.

G.A.O. Report Says Trump Administration Broke Law in Withholding Ukraine Aid
Click to expand...
At the same time the funds were withheld the IMF released a memo regarding rampant corruption in the Ukraine. Concern about US equipment/ miney being misused was a concern and quickly resolved and funding and equipment released to the Ukraine.

We as a country are currently withholding Congress approved money to 14 nations today. Mostly over the same concerns we had with the Ukraine. In the last 5 years funding has been delayed or denied 76 separate times.

Still looking for empirical evidence of wrongdoing. And I would support Ukrainian help in locating the DNC server that crowd strike, not a federal investigator body used to blame Russian hacking on. It's a question that warrants investigation. As does the Biden brothers relationship to Joe Biden blackmailing the Ukrainian government into a quib pro quo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and vols40
#34,162
#34,162
Mick said:
Chief Justice shall preside over the Senate during the consideration of said articles, and upon the trial of the person impeached therein. The presiding officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself ,all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules, or by the Senate. The Senate sets the rules with majority vote and only two people can enforce the rules. One is the Chief Justice and the other is the Secretary of the Senate. These two people can operate independently of one another That's my interpretation of the Constitutional power if the presiding officer . When it says "by himself" there wasn't a qualifier of unless overruled by the people being presided over. That would defeat the purpose of even having someone preside over it.
Click to expand...

If it’s the senate who authorizes his power by the rules they pass they can at any time alter or strip him of any power they granted him.

If someone of some party is granting you authority/power it’s not you that has the authority/power it’s the people/person that gave it to you that has the power. How do you not understand this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40
#34,163
#34,163
 
#34,164
#34,164
hog88 said:
If it’s the senate who authorizes his power by the rules they pass they can at any time alter or strip him of any power they granted him.

If someone of some party is granting you authority/power it’s not you that has the authority/power it’s the people/person that gave it to you that has the power. How do you not understand this?
Click to expand...
Who granted the senators power?
 
#34,165
#34,165
Mick said:
Chief Justice shall preside over the Senate during the consideration of said articles, and upon the trial of the person impeached therein. The presiding officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself ,all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules, or by the Senate. The Senate sets the rules with majority vote and only two people can enforce the rules. One is the Chief Justice and the other is the Secretary of the Senate. These two people can operate independently of one another That's my interpretation of the Constitutional power if the presiding officer . When it says "by himself" there wasn't a qualifier of unless overruled by the people being presided over. That would defeat the purpose of even having someone preside over it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#34,170
#34,170
BowlBrother85 said:
What are you talking about? They are included in Article I: Abuse of Power.

A portion of Article I reads as follows: "Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of the Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of the Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations."
Click to expand...

Specific crime. Clinton was charged with specific crimes perjury suborning perjury. Nixon resigned or would have been charged with a specific crime. Abuse of power? Looking into corruption in a nation and a new president whose country is known for corruption? A politician of 40 plus years can not be guilty of corruption? But a guy with less than 3 years political experience must be corrupt? Say that again to yourself and hear how stupid that sounds. If we follow your logic to it's conclusion then Hunter should throw his hat in the ring for president and Senate Republicans can't call him as a witness? Again read that logic out loud to yourself. Abuse of power... Next level of intellectual light weights. GTFOH if we want the Dem talking points there is CNN and MSNBC for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and tennvols77
#34,171
#34,171
VolnJC said:
Avenatti and now Parnas...along with dead terrorist leaders...the left sure does know how to pick their heroes
Click to expand...

Keep in mind... that Lev Parnas was obviously someone close to Giuliani. Maybe you should reserve some of your scorn for the people that Trump and those close to him, choose to bring into their orbit. The people you choose to associate with, says a lot about who you are.

...and you don't have to take Parnas's word for everything. The e-mail that he provided from Jay Sekulow to John Dowd clearly shows that Dowd intended to represent Parnas and Fruman - and that had the blessing of Donald Trump.
 
#34,172
#34,172
 
#34,173
#34,173
hog88 said:
The constitution.
Click to expand...
You are so predictable.
And.........who ratified the constitution?
I think the senators, especially the many who are already uneasy with publicly sacrificing their morals to cover for Trump, are going to be reluctant to change the rules in an obvious attempt to keep Roberts from having a fairer trial.
 
#34,174
#34,174
BowlBrother85 said:
Trump pulled independents who didn't like either candidate and viewed Trump as 'the lesser of two evils', but there isn't much evidence that he pulled Dem voters. It should be noted that Trump only received 46.2% of the popular vote.
Click to expand...

It should also be noted that the above statement doesn't mean crap. Trump got what was required plus some. I'll do the math for you 46.2% or 306= 45th president of the United States.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top