nWo_Kevin Posted December 20, 2019 Report Share Posted December 20, 2019 According to Noah Feldman, a witness in the judiciary hearing and a Harvard Law Professor, if Pelosi keeps the Articles of Impeachment in the House and doesn't turn them over to the Senate, Trump is not technically impeached. I am bringing that up because Pelosi seems to think keeping them helps the Dems more politically than turning them over to the Senate. Not sure why, but *shrugs*. Saw that this morning too. Here's more info on it: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AONO. Posted December 20, 2019 Report Share Posted December 20, 2019 Pelosi was very clear why she didn't pass it to the senate yet. And there is no indication that she doesn't plan to send them at all. oath: "I solemnly swear [or affirm, as the case may be] that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [the person being impeached], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God." Mitch Mcconnell: "I'm not imaprtial about this at all" Lindsey Graham: "Not trying to pretend to be a fair juror" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink! Posted December 20, 2019 Report Share Posted December 20, 2019 Pelosi was very clear why she didn't pass it to the senate yet. And there is no indication that she doesn't plan to send them at all. oath: "I solemnly swear [or affirm, as the case may be] that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [the person being impeached], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God." Mitch Mcconnell: "I'm not imaprtial about this at all" Lindsey Graham: "Not trying to pretend to be a fair juror" I get what you're saying. The issue is that Pelosi doesn't want to send them before she sees the rules of how the trial will play out. McConnell says he has no plans to meet with Dems to decide the rules of how the trial is going to play out. Essentially, McConnell can stand firmly at his position because as long as Pelosi doesn't send them over, Trump isn't impeached. It's a good move, strategically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted December 21, 2019 Report Share Posted December 21, 2019 Pelosi was very clear why she didn't pass it to the senate yet. And there is no indication that she doesn't plan to send them at all. oath: "I solemnly swear [or affirm, as the case may be] that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [the person being impeached], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God." Mitch Mcconnell: "I'm not imaprtial about this at all" Lindsey Graham: "Not trying to pretend to be a fair juror" This in a nutshell. Republicans don't stand for anything. And by that, I mean representatively. If they do, they are doing a piss-poor job of showing it...because, all I'm seeing is blind loyalty to a single candidate. Not actual ideas, or even a solid defense of why Trump shouldn't be impeached. It's literally just "this is what we are now". They came down to this level, and they can never return from it. They're stuck being subservient yes-men. In wrestling terms, you could call them marks. They're marks for Trump. Also, they're all so deeply tangled in his web of collusion and bullshit that they couldn't speak the truth even if they wanted to. Hell...we've already seen close friends and covenants of his who did exactly that and are now in prison. The fall men keep falling...and the most inept criminal on the planet keeps getting away with his bullshit (because he has money and yes-men); (And also a probable master/overseer in Russia). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nWo_Kevin Posted December 21, 2019 Report Share Posted December 21, 2019 Pelosi was very clear why she didn't pass it to the senate yet. And there is no indication that she doesn't plan to send them at all. oath: "I solemnly swear [or affirm, as the case may be] that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [the person being impeached], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God." Mitch Mcconnell: "I'm not imaprtial about this at all" Lindsey Graham: "Not trying to pretend to be a fair juror" This in a nutshell. Republicans don't stand for anything. And by that, I mean representatively. If they do, they are doing a piss-poor job of showing it...because, all I'm seeing is blind loyalty to a single candidate. Not actual ideas, or even a solid defense of why Trump shouldn't be impeached. It's literally just "this is what we are now". They came down to this level, and they can never return from it. They're stuck being subservient yes-men. In wrestling terms, you could call them marks. They're marks for Trump. Also, they're all so deeply tangled in his web of collusion and bullshit that they couldn't speak the truth even if they wanted to. Hell...we've already seen close friends and covenants of his who did exactly that and are now in prison. The fall men keep falling...and the most inept criminal on the planet keeps getting away with his bullshit (because he has money and yes-men); (And also a probable master/overseer in Russia). Gen. Can you honestly say that the House has been "Fair" and "Impartial". Honest question? And I guess the same can be asked to AONO. Because if you are honest and say "No" then I don't see how you can be upset that the Senate is choosing to do the same. The problem with this whole thing is the Democrats have tried to get rid of him for 4 years and they have nothing. It's the story of the Boy who cried Wolf. Except where this story changes is the boy is finally able to present a wolf to the towns people....except he shows them a dog. And the people are saying "Really? This is what you've got?". The House isn't impeaching Trump with anything to do with Russia and anything to do with bribery. They are charging him on Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power. Both of which, in context, mean very little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink! Posted December 21, 2019 Report Share Posted December 21, 2019 Pelosi was very clear why she didn't pass it to the senate yet. And there is no indication that she doesn't plan to send them at all. oath: "I solemnly swear [or affirm, as the case may be] that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [the person being impeached], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God." Mitch Mcconnell: "I'm not imaprtial about this at all" Lindsey Graham: "Not trying to pretend to be a fair juror" This in a nutshell. Republicans don't stand for anything. And by that, I mean representatively. If they do, they are doing a piss-poor job of showing it...because, all I'm seeing is blind loyalty to a single candidate. Not actual ideas, or even a solid defense of why Trump shouldn't be impeached. It's literally just "this is what we are now". They came down to this level, and they can never return from it. They're stuck being subservient yes-men. In wrestling terms, you could call them marks. They're marks for Trump. Also, they're all so deeply tangled in his web of collusion and bullshit that they couldn't speak the truth even if they wanted to. Hell...we've already seen close friends and covenants of his who did exactly that and are now in prison. The fall men keep falling...and the most inept criminal on the planet keeps getting away with his bullshit (because he has money and yes-men); (And also a probable master/overseer in Russia). Gen. Can you honestly say that the House has been "Fair" and "Impartial". Honest question? And I guess the same can be asked to AONO. Because if you are honest and say "No" then I don't see how you can be upset that the Senate is choosing to do the same. The problem with this whole thing is the Democrats have tried to get rid of him for 4 years and they have nothing. It's the story of the Boy who cried Wolf. Except where this story changes is the boy is finally able to present a wolf to the towns people....except he shows them a dog. And the people are saying "Really? This is what you've got?". The House isn't impeaching Trump with anything to do with Russia and anything to do with bribery. They are charging him on Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power. Both of which, in context, mean very little. Pelosi literally said they have been working on impeaching Trump for 2 1/2 years. There goes the impartial argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedmaniac Posted December 21, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2019 He's been doing stupid shit for at least 4 years though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink! Posted December 21, 2019 Report Share Posted December 21, 2019 He's been doing stupid shit for at least 4 years though. Every President does stupid shit. I remember when Paul Ryan stated that Republicans shouldn't impeach Obama back in 2014 when the Republicans controlled both houses. My have things changed since Pelosi took the reigns back. https://time.com/3058670/paul-ryan-obama-impeach-sue/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AONO. Posted December 21, 2019 Report Share Posted December 21, 2019 Gen. Can you honestly say that the House has been "Fair" and "Impartial". Honest question? And I guess the same can be asked to AONO. Because if you are honest and say "No" then I don't see how you can be upset that the Senate is choosing to do the same. The problem with this whole thing is the Democrats have tried to get rid of him for 4 years and they have nothing. It's the story of the Boy who cried Wolf. Except where this story changes is the boy is finally able to present a wolf to the towns people....except he shows them a dog. And the people are saying "Really? This is what you've got?". The House isn't impeaching Trump with anything to do with Russia and anything to do with bribery. They are charging him on Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power. Both of which, in context, mean very little. By that comparison, no prosecutor can be truly impartial, nor the investigators. And you compare the "impartialness" of the prosecutor with that of a judge/juror (in the impeachment trial). That's perfectly ok with you? It's perfectly ok in that case to directly violate your oath (even to blatantly publicly announce it beforehand)? You want to shift blames? Seriously? After all they crying about "partisan processes", they are willing to directly violate the oath... for Trump? And you see a guy like Mitch McConnell out of all people as a positive in contrary to the Democrats... Every day the standard has gone lower and lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink! Posted December 21, 2019 Report Share Posted December 21, 2019 Gen. Can you honestly say that the House has been "Fair" and "Impartial". Honest question? And I guess the same can be asked to AONO. Because if you are honest and say "No" then I don't see how you can be upset that the Senate is choosing to do the same. The problem with this whole thing is the Democrats have tried to get rid of him for 4 years and they have nothing. It's the story of the Boy who cried Wolf. Except where this story changes is the boy is finally able to present a wolf to the towns people....except he shows them a dog. And the people are saying "Really? This is what you've got?". The House isn't impeaching Trump with anything to do with Russia and anything to do with bribery. They are charging him on Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power. Both of which, in context, mean very little. By that comparison, no prosecutor can be truly impartial, nor the investigators. And you compare the "impartialness" of the prosecutor with that of a judge/juror (in the impeachment trial). That's perfectly ok with you? It's perfectly ok in that case to directly violate your oath (even to blatantly publicly announce it beforehand)? You want to shift blames? Seriously? After all they crying about "partisan processes", they are willing to directly violate the oath... for Trump? And you see a guy like Mitch McConnell out of all people as a positive in contrary to the Democrats... Every day the standard has gone lower and lower. We are not shifting blames. We are calling a spade a spade. I'll just leave this here too, in reference to the oath to remain impartial. "The Constitution requires senators to take a special oath or affirmation to participate in impeachment proceedings. It doesn’t specify what the oath must say, though the chamber’s practice has been to require each senator to promise “impartial justice.” The wording of the oath was established in the first impeachment proceedings, the 1798 trial of Senator William Blount: “I, (name) solemnly swear, (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of (name), I will do impartial justice, according to law.” https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/21/senate-oath-impartial-trump-impeachment-mcconnell/40867519/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nWo_Kevin Posted December 22, 2019 Report Share Posted December 22, 2019 Gen. Can you honestly say that the House has been "Fair" and "Impartial". Honest question? And I guess the same can be asked to AONO. Because if you are honest and say "No" then I don't see how you can be upset that the Senate is choosing to do the same. The problem with this whole thing is the Democrats have tried to get rid of him for 4 years and they have nothing. It's the story of the Boy who cried Wolf. Except where this story changes is the boy is finally able to present a wolf to the towns people....except he shows them a dog. And the people are saying "Really? This is what you've got?". The House isn't impeaching Trump with anything to do with Russia and anything to do with bribery. They are charging him on Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power. Both of which, in context, mean very little. By that comparison, no prosecutor can be truly impartial, nor the investigators. And you compare the "impartialness" of the prosecutor with that of a judge/juror (in the impeachment trial). That's perfectly ok with you? It's perfectly ok in that case to directly violate your oath (even to blatantly publicly announce it beforehand)? You want to shift blames? Seriously? After all they crying about "partisan processes", they are willing to directly violate the oath... for Trump? And you see a guy like Mitch McConnell out of all people as a positive in contrary to the Democrats... Every day the standard has gone lower and lower. This whole thing is a sham and the Republicans are treating it as such. If the Democrats really had something they would probably be able to get more support. Not just from the Republicans but also from voters too. They tried to accuse him of bribery and realized they had nothing. So they are desperately trying Obstruction and Abuse cases. Neither of which have any true standing. This is about the 2020 election. Nothing more and nothing less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AONO. Posted December 22, 2019 Report Share Posted December 22, 2019 Gen. Can you honestly say that the House has been "Fair" and "Impartial". Honest question? And I guess the same can be asked to AONO. Because if you are honest and say "No" then I don't see how you can be upset that the Senate is choosing to do the same. The problem with this whole thing is the Democrats have tried to get rid of him for 4 years and they have nothing. It's the story of the Boy who cried Wolf. Except where this story changes is the boy is finally able to present a wolf to the towns people....except he shows them a dog. And the people are saying "Really? This is what you've got?". The House isn't impeaching Trump with anything to do with Russia and anything to do with bribery. They are charging him on Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power. Both of which, in context, mean very little. By that comparison, no prosecutor can be truly impartial, nor the investigators. And you compare the "impartialness" of the prosecutor with that of a judge/juror (in the impeachment trial). That's perfectly ok with you? It's perfectly ok in that case to directly violate your oath (even to blatantly publicly announce it beforehand)? You want to shift blames? Seriously? After all they crying about "partisan processes", they are willing to directly violate the oath... for Trump? And you see a guy like Mitch McConnell out of all people as a positive in contrary to the Democrats... Every day the standard has gone lower and lower. This whole thing is a sham and the Republicans are treating it as such. If the Democrats really had something they would probably be able to get more support. Not just from the Republicans but also from voters too. They tried to accuse him of bribery and realized they had nothing. So they are desperately trying Obstruction and Abuse cases. Neither of which have any true standing. This is about the 2020 election. Nothing more and nothing less. I take it since you again deflect that it's ok with you. And I see that we are on that level of discussion and arguments again. So, that's it for me. I'd be fine with discussions, proving and disproving, debates... but constant repeating of things that are not arguments for anything, and trying to distort facts and meanings are just not what I am into and I'm not taking part in that anymore. This topic was always that anyway, a real representation of what we have. The constant conversation changing, and bending of facts, truths and narratives to conform to a specific agenda. And it's honestly insulting to ones intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted December 22, 2019 Report Share Posted December 22, 2019 I can't imagine this has anything to do with the elections because the Dems should be smart enough to know that if they lose, it'll likely backfire and see Trump get more support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nWo_Kevin Posted December 22, 2019 Report Share Posted December 22, 2019 This whole thing is a sham and the Republicans are treating it as such. If the Democrats really had something they would probably be able to get more support. Not just from the Republicans but also from voters too. They tried to accuse him of bribery and realized they had nothing. So they are desperately trying Obstruction and Abuse cases. Neither of which have any true standing. This is about the 2020 election. Nothing more and nothing less.I take it since you again deflect that it's ok with you. And I see that we are on that level of discussion and arguments again. So, that's it for me. Bye. Did you even answer the question I originally asked you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AONO. Posted December 22, 2019 Report Share Posted December 22, 2019 I can't imagine this has anything to do with the elections because the Dems should be smart enough to know that if they lose, it'll likely backfire and see Trump get more support. Of course it has to do with the election, the thing is, that does not demean it as much as some people think it does, or wish it does. That's not valid argument for the whole ordeal. But they made people believe it is. That's the whole thing. There is no defence other than to claim that the accusation itself has no merit. Which is false. This whole thing is a sham and the Republicans are treating it as such. If the Democrats really had something they would probably be able to get more support. Not just from the Republicans but also from voters too. They tried to accuse him of bribery and realized they had nothing. So they are desperately trying Obstruction and Abuse cases. Neither of which have any true standing. This is about the 2020 election. Nothing more and nothing less.I take it since you again deflect that it's ok with you. And I see that we are on that level of discussion and arguments again. So, that's it for me. Bye. Did you even answer the question I originally asked you? Yes they were fair. And I said what I think about your being "impartial" question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nWo_Kevin Posted December 22, 2019 Report Share Posted December 22, 2019 Yes they were fair. And I said what I think about your being "impartial" question. You wouldn't happen to be in the market for a bridge would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AONO. Posted December 22, 2019 Report Share Posted December 22, 2019 Yes they were fair. And I said what I think about your being "impartial" question. You wouldn't happen to be in the market for a bridge would you? Explain how it wasn't "fair" then. And what do you constitute as "fair" in the impeachment inquiry. Because I am not interested in more flamebaiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted December 22, 2019 Report Share Posted December 22, 2019 seems like the impeachment is causing a lot of centrists and non-Trump supporters to start siding with him audibly, But as someone pointed out, they probably already did but needed an excuse to be open about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink! Posted December 22, 2019 Report Share Posted December 22, 2019 Of course it has to do with the election, the thing is, that does not demean it as much as some people think it does, or wish it does. That's not valid argument for the whole ordeal. But they made people believe it is. That's the whole thing. There is no defence other than to claim that the accusation itself has no merit. Which is false. You can't say it was fair and then say this too. They contradict each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WNX Posted December 22, 2019 Report Share Posted December 22, 2019 Not related to the current discussion but... Do we really need 30 new Abrams tanks? And why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink! Posted December 22, 2019 Report Share Posted December 22, 2019 Not related to the current discussion but... Do we really need 30 new Abrams tanks? And why? One of the main things I can't stand about Trump. He spends like there's no tomorrow. I wish Congress would have adopted Rand Paul's two cent plan. Take two cents out of every dollar and put it towards the debt. Debt would be cleared in a little more then ten years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted December 22, 2019 Report Share Posted December 22, 2019 Not related to the current discussion but... Do we really need 30 new Abrams tanks? And why? we don't need a new military force or to spend hundreds of millions or billions on defense, but it's just to benefit the weapons industry, which is a shame as that money could have been used towards welfare, healthcare, education, and whatever helps people. Just further prove that the administration does not care about people, and republicans hate anyone who's not wealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WNX Posted December 22, 2019 Report Share Posted December 22, 2019 I wish Congress would have adopted Rand Paul's two cent plan. Take two cents out of every dollar and put it towards the debt. Debt would be cleared in a little more then ten years. Is it completely off the table or could it still be considered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunchbox Posted December 25, 2019 Report Share Posted December 25, 2019 Trump said windpower is too loud. Hes an actual idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink! Posted December 26, 2019 Report Share Posted December 26, 2019 Trump said windpower is too loud. Hes an actual idiot. It can be under certain circumstances. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080811095500.htm I wish Congress would have adopted Rand Paul's two cent plan. Take two cents out of every dollar and put it towards the debt. Debt would be cleared in a little more then ten years. Is it completely off the table or could it still be considered? It can always be considered, but the Senate wouldn't even allow it to come for a final vote when he introduced it. https://reason.com/2019/06/03/bipartisan-senate-effort-predictably-kills-rand-pauls-plan-to-balance-the-federal-budget/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.