The Impeachment Thread

#34,226
#34,226
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...

Are you still of the opinion that Hunter should wash his hands of all this talk of Burisma and testifying in the impeachment trial by getting into the Presidential race?
 
Last edited:
#34,228
#34,228
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...
Not if the presiding officer doesn't allow it. What's to stop that from happening? I'm curious how they're even going to get 51 votes to start without intervention. How do you see that going down and with what terms?
 
#34,230
#34,230
Mick said:
Not if the presiding officer doesn't allow it. What's to stop that from happening? I'm curious how they're even going to get 51 votes to start without intervention.
Click to expand...

How are you still not understanding? If the senate voted in the rules that said Roberts had to raise his hand and ask Mitch permission to speak that would be a rule he would have to follow.

The senate wouldn’t even allow Rehnquist to turn his microphone on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#34,231
#34,231
Mick said:
Not if the presiding officer doesn't allow it. What's to stop that from happening? I'm curious how they're even going to get 51 votes to start without intervention. How do you see that going down and with what terms?
Click to expand...

They could vote to dismiss it altogether. Wouldn’t that be glorious. 🤣
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and vols40
#34,233
#34,233
Orange_Crush said:
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.
Click to expand...
That wasn't a question, thus no question mark.
It was the answer to your question.
Dooley's hiring was a mistake.
 
#34,234
#34,234
Orangeburst said:
A glimmer of hope that somehow, just somehow it will happen.
Click to expand...
My hope is that the majority of Americans will see what a desperate bunch the left is, and how much time money and effort they have wasted in this farce. And also will see that even with zero support from the leftists, Mr Trump has signed fantastic trade deals that benefit Americans. Killed a terrorist. Created an environment where millions more Americans are working instead of taking from the .gov. And armed with that knowledge, curb stomp the democrat representatives into oblivion in November.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood, vols40 and Orangeburst
#34,236
#34,236
Orange_Crush said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is spot on which makes the defense of the Clinton's baffling. LMAO
 
#34,237
#34,237
hog88 said:
How are you still not understanding? If the senate voted in the rules that said Roberts had to raise his hand and ask Mitch permission to speak that would be a rule he would have to follow.

The senate wouldn’t even allow Rehnquist to turn his microphone on.
Click to expand...

Would this be a good place for ...Elections have consequences?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, vols40, Orangeburst and 1 other person
#34,238
#34,238
vols40 said:
Minimum
Click to expand...
iu
 
#34,239
#34,239
Mick said:
Not if the presiding officer doesn't allow it. What's to stop that from happening? I'm curious how they're even going to get 51 votes to start without intervention. How do you see that going down and with what terms?
Click to expand...
The terms will be negotiated until there is a majority. Really it comes down does Mitch have a majority with no witnesses. If he doesn’t he will negotiate to allow witnesses and try to limit the damage. This isn’t hard.
 
#34,240
#34,240
hog88 said:
How are you still not understanding? If the senate voted in the rules that said Roberts had to raise his hand and ask Mitch permission to speak that would be a rule he would have to follow.

The senate wouldn’t even allow Rehnquist to turn his microphone on.
Click to expand...
Was that a rule that they voted on or was there nothing Rehnquist really needed to do. They had tons a load of evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40
#34,242
#34,242
volfanhill said:
The terms will be negotiated until there is a majority. Really it comes down does Mitch have a majority with no witnesses. If he doesn’t he will negotiate to allow witnesses and try to limit the damage. This isn’t hard.
Click to expand...
Do you think they will be able to get 51 to agree on the witness list?
 
#34,243
#34,243
SpaceCoastVol said:
My hope is that the majority of Americans will see what a desperate bunch the left is, and how much time money and effort they have wasted in this farce. And also will see that even with zero support from the leftists, Mr Trump has signed fantastic trade deals that benefit Americans. Killed a terrorist. Created an environment where millions more Americans are working instead of taking from the .gov. And armed with that knowledge, curb stomp the democrat representatives into oblivion in November.
Click to expand...

But you can't really say unemployment is a big deal because all the jobs created are dead end jobs. Don't pay enough. Aren't responsible for household income being higher in 3 years than Obama and Bush combined during their entire 16 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and SpaceCoastVol
#34,245
#34,245
vols40 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that he was impeached, but one of the articles of impeachment that had been drawn up at the time of his resignation, included abuse of power. This was done after the smoking gun tape was revealed on August 3rd.
 
#34,246
#34,246
Mick said:
Do you think they will be able to get 51 to agree on the witness list?
Click to expand...
Yes. They will make it work bc they have to. If he can’t get no witnesses it’s what can I get the risky republicans to agree to that gives them cover. They won’t ask for much. Hell they will get to claim they stood up to trump and Mitch and made demands. It’s a circus trial that ends the way we all know it will.
 
#34,247
#34,247
BowlBrother85 said:
I didn't say that he was impeached, but one of the articles of impeachment that had been drawn up at the time of his resignation, included abuse of power. This was done after the smoking gun tape was revealed on August 3rd.
Click to expand...

And what I am saying is if that's the case then it's not a specific crime. High crimes bribery? No Nancy didn't like what the focus group said about that. Specific crime! If you don't it leaves a lot of room for future sham impeachments.

Still curious if you think Hunter should get in the race?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top