The Impeachment Thread

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.

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
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.
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.
 
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.

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 .
 
the senate has the power to alter/change the rules they set at any time. How am I contradicting myself?
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.
 
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.

Lol. What a hypocrite.
 
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
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.
 
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.

You‘re getting as bad as Huff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
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.
Keep sayin it till it's true. Click your heels together three times? Rub the lamp?
 
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.
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.
 
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.
Too bad no one did in the House
 
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.
What exactly do you really and truly expect to come out of this?
 
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.

They can’t accept the L they’re gonna take no matter what.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
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.

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:
What would have been right.
Think UT's hiring of Dooley.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

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
Advertisement

Back
Top