Senate Can Still Hold Impeachment Trial Even if House Does NOT Send the Articles over

[idb]

So is JimBowie wrong?
Is Mitch McConnell wrong when he says ..."I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision. The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all," said McConnell.

Is Chuck Schumer impartial and undecided?

Stick to the point.
Is impeachment a judicial process or a political one?

It's a political one. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be conducted with fairness, where both sides get an equal chance to state their case, call witnesses, and cross-examine the other side's witnesses. Which is part of what due process means. That doesn't mean the Dems or Repubs have to be impartial, that ain't going to happen in political processes. But at least both sides should get their say.

But, if one side refuses to participate how can they then whine about lack of fairness and due process?

The Republicans didn't refuse to participate. In the hearings, Schiff would not allow them to ask tough questions or to call witnesses.

But...the Republican had their witnesses.
It didn't go well for them as I recall.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Is Chuck Schumer impartial and undecided?

Stick to the point.
Is impeachment a judicial process or a political one?

It's a political one. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be conducted with fairness, where both sides get an equal chance to state their case, call witnesses, and cross-examine the other side's witnesses. Which is part of what due process means. That doesn't mean the Dems or Repubs have to be impartial, that ain't going to happen in political processes. But at least both sides should get their say.

But, if one side refuses to participate how can they then whine about lack of fairness and due process?

The Republicans didn't refuse to participate. In the hearings, Schiff would not allow them to ask tough questions or to call witnesses.

But...the Republican had their witnesses.
It didn't go well for them as I recall.

They didn't get the witnesses they wanted and weren't allowed to ask the questions they wanted to. This was a Democratic political stunt, not a serious impeachment. From the beginning it was clear the President would not be convicted by the Senate. It was just another platform from which the Democrats could scream at the President.

Consider the bizarre "charges". Asking another country to cooperate with an investigation was called an abuse of power, but countries frequently do that, and citing executive privilege to deny Congress what they asked for was called obstruction of Congress; if that is an impeachable offense, every president could be impeached. Clearly, there are only two kinds of Democrats in Congress,the scammers and those they scammed.

 

[idb]

Stick to the point.
Is impeachment a judicial process or a political one?

It's a political one. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be conducted with fairness, where both sides get an equal chance to state their case, call witnesses, and cross-examine the other side's witnesses. Which is part of what due process means. That doesn't mean the Dems or Repubs have to be impartial, that ain't going to happen in political processes. But at least both sides should get their say.

But, if one side refuses to participate how can they then whine about lack of fairness and due process?

The Republicans didn't refuse to participate. In the hearings, Schiff would not allow them to ask tough questions or to call witnesses.

But...the Republican had their witnesses.
It didn't go well for them as I recall.

They didn't get the witnesses they wanted and weren't allowed to ask the questions they wanted to. This was a Democratic political stunt, not a serious impeachment. From the beginning it was clear the President would not be convicted by the Senate. It was just another platform from which the Democrats could scream at the President.

Consider the bizarre "charges". Asking another country to cooperate with an investigation was called an abuse of power, but countries frequently do that, and citing executive privilege to deny Congress what they asked for was called obstruction of Congress; if that is an impeachable offense, every president could be impeached. Clearly, there are only two kinds of Democrats in Congress,the scammers and those they scammed.

Denying another country aid that has been approved by Congress to persuade them to investigate a political rival is not frequently done...can you cite another example?

Where does the Constitution give the President Executive Privilege to impede an investigation into him?
The whole idea of impeachment is as a final curb on the President should he go rogue.
How can that be effective if the person for which the impeachment clause was intended can set the rules?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The republicans were not allowed to call witnesess nor question any witness.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It's a political one. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be conducted with fairness, where both sides get an equal chance to state their case, call witnesses, and cross-examine the other side's witnesses. Which is part of what due process means. That doesn't mean the Dems or Repubs have to be impartial, that ain't going to happen in political processes. But at least both sides should get their say.

But, if one side refuses to participate how can they then whine about lack of fairness and due process?

The Republicans didn't refuse to participate. In the hearings, Schiff would not allow them to ask tough questions or to call witnesses.

But...the Republican had their witnesses.
It didn't go well for them as I recall.

They didn't get the witnesses they wanted and weren't allowed to ask the questions they wanted to. This was a Democratic political stunt, not a serious impeachment. From the beginning it was clear the President would not be convicted by the Senate. It was just another platform from which the Democrats could scream at the President.

Consider the bizarre "charges". Asking another country to cooperate with an investigation was called an abuse of power, but countries frequently do that, and citing executive privilege to deny Congress what they asked for was called obstruction of Congress; if that is an impeachable offense, every president could be impeached. Clearly, there are only two kinds of Democrats in Congress,the scammers and those they scammed.

It's a political one. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be conducted with fairness, where both sides get an equal chance to state their case, call witnesses, and cross-examine the other side's witnesses. Which is part of what due process means. That doesn't mean the Dems or Repubs have to be impartial, that ain't going to happen in political processes. But at least both sides should get their say.

But, if one side refuses to participate how can they then whine about lack of fairness and due process?

The Republicans didn't refuse to participate. In the hearings, Schiff would not allow them to ask tough questions or to call witnesses.

But...the Republican had their witnesses.
It didn't go well for them as I recall.

They didn't get the witnesses they wanted and weren't allowed to ask the questions they wanted to. This was a Democratic political stunt, not a serious impeachment. From the beginning it was clear the President would not be convicted by the Senate. It was just another platform from which the Democrats could scream at the President.

Consider the bizarre "charges". Asking another country to cooperate with an investigation was called an abuse of power, but countries frequently do that, and citing executive privilege to deny Congress what they asked for was called obstruction of Congress; if that is an impeachable offense, every president could be impeached. Clearly, there are only two kinds of Democrats in Congress,the scammers and those they scammed.

Denying another country aid that has been approved by Congress to persuade them to investigate a political rival is not frequently done...can you cite another example?

Where does the Constitution give the President Executive Privilege to impede an investigation into him?
The whole idea of impeachment is as a final curb on the President should he go rogue.
How can that be effective if the person for which the impeachment clause was intended can set the rules?

Trump asked Zelensky to cooperate with an ongoing investigation into the 2016 election, and certainly Joe Biden's December 2015 trip to Ukraine to threaten the President of Ukraine with a cutoff of US aid unless he helped cover up the Hunter Biden scandal before the 2016 elections was a part of it. Your claim that Biden should get immunity for his actions because he hopes to be running against Trump is bizarre and ridiculous.

Executive privilege is not mentioned in the Constitution at all, but the courts have recognized it is sometimes necessary, however, it has always before been treated as a civil matter and never before as a criminal matter. If the Democrats believed the President had improperly cited executive privilege, the proper course of action is to take it to the courts to decide, but to insist Congress can demand anything it wants from the executive branch is an assault of the Constitution's separation of powers.

 

[idb]

The republicans were not allowed to call witnesess nor question any witness.

That's simply not true.
What were you watching...it certainly wasn't the impeachment enquiry?

 

[toomuchtime_]

The republicans were not allowed to call witnesess nor question any witness.

That's simply not true.
What were you watching...it certainly wasn't the impeachment enquiry?

Of course it's true. Schiff stopped Republican questions whenever he thought they would be damaging to his case and denied many witnesses the Republicans requested. There was no House investigation. It was just a political show. The Democrats made America look like a third world country.

 

[idb]

But, if one side refuses to participate how can they then whine about lack of fairness and due process?

The Republicans didn't refuse to participate. In the hearings, Schiff would not allow them to ask tough questions or to call witnesses.

But...the Republican had their witnesses.
It didn't go well for them as I recall.

They didn't get the witnesses they wanted and weren't allowed to ask the questions they wanted to. This was a Democratic political stunt, not a serious impeachment. From the beginning it was clear the President would not be convicted by the Senate. It was just another platform from which the Democrats could scream at the President.

Consider the bizarre "charges". Asking another country to cooperate with an investigation was called an abuse of power, but countries frequently do that, and citing executive privilege to deny Congress what they asked for was called obstruction of Congress; if that is an impeachable offense, every president could be impeached. Clearly, there are only two kinds of Democrats in Congress,the scammers and those they scammed.

But, if one side refuses to participate how can they then whine about lack of fairness and due process?

The Republicans didn't refuse to participate. In the hearings, Schiff would not allow them to ask tough questions or to call witnesses.

But...the Republican had their witnesses.
It didn't go well for them as I recall.

They didn't get the witnesses they wanted and weren't allowed to ask the questions they wanted to. This was a Democratic political stunt, not a serious impeachment. From the beginning it was clear the President would not be convicted by the Senate. It was just another platform from which the Democrats could scream at the President.

Consider the bizarre "charges". Asking another country to cooperate with an investigation was called an abuse of power, but countries frequently do that, and citing executive privilege to deny Congress what they asked for was called obstruction of Congress; if that is an impeachable offense, every president could be impeached. Clearly, there are only two kinds of Democrats in Congress,the scammers and those they scammed.

Denying another country aid that has been approved by Congress to persuade them to investigate a political rival is not frequently done...can you cite another example?

Where does the Constitution give the President Executive Privilege to impede an investigation into him?
The whole idea of impeachment is as a final curb on the President should he go rogue.
How can that be effective if the person for which the impeachment clause was intended can set the rules?

Trump asked Zelensky to cooperate with an ongoing investigation into the 2016 election, and certainly Joe Biden's December 2015 trip to Ukraine to threaten the President of Ukraine with a cutoff of US aid unless he helped cover up the Hunter Biden scandal before the 2016 elections was a part of it. Your claim that Biden should get immunity for his actions because he hopes to be running against Trump is bizarre and ridiculous.

Executive privilege is not mentioned in the Constitution at all, but the courts have recognized it is sometimes necessary, however, it has always before been treated as a civil matter and never before as a criminal matter. If the Democrats believed the President had improperly cited executive privilege, the proper course of action is to take it to the courts to decide, but to insist Congress can demand anything it wants from the executive branch is an assault of the Constitution's separation of powers.

Biden's threat to Ukraine was a bipartisan Congress-approved position to remove a prosecutor that was internationally acknowledged as corrupt.
There was no scandal.

Executive privilege isn't mentioned but to think that the Framers would approve the tool they intended as the final mechanism to rein in an out of control or dangerous President could be nullified by that same President is what's bizarre and ridiculous

 

[idb]

The republicans were not allowed to call witnesess nor question any witness.

That's simply not true.
What were you watching...it certainly wasn't the impeachment enquiry?

Of course it's true. Schiff stopped Republican questions whenever he thought they would be damaging to his case and denied many witnesses the Republicans requested. There was no House investigation. It was just a political show. The Democrats made America look like a third world country.

That's not what you claimed.
You said "republicans were not allowed to call witnesess nor question any witness".
That's clearly false.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The Republicans didn't refuse to participate. In the hearings, Schiff would not allow them to ask tough questions or to call witnesses.

But...the Republican had their witnesses.
It didn't go well for them as I recall.

They didn't get the witnesses they wanted and weren't allowed to ask the questions they wanted to. This was a Democratic political stunt, not a serious impeachment. From the beginning it was clear the President would not be convicted by the Senate. It was just another platform from which the Democrats could scream at the President.

Consider the bizarre "charges". Asking another country to cooperate with an investigation was called an abuse of power, but countries frequently do that, and citing executive privilege to deny Congress what they asked for was called obstruction of Congress; if that is an impeachable offense, every president could be impeached. Clearly, there are only two kinds of Democrats in Congress,the scammers and those they scammed.

The Republicans didn't refuse to participate. In the hearings, Schiff would not allow them to ask tough questions or to call witnesses.

But...the Republican had their witnesses.
It didn't go well for them as I recall.

They didn't get the witnesses they wanted and weren't allowed to ask the questions they wanted to. This was a Democratic political stunt, not a serious impeachment. From the beginning it was clear the President would not be convicted by the Senate. It was just another platform from which the Democrats could scream at the President.

Consider the bizarre "charges". Asking another country to cooperate with an investigation was called an abuse of power, but countries frequently do that, and citing executive privilege to deny Congress what they asked for was called obstruction of Congress; if that is an impeachable offense, every president could be impeached. Clearly, there are only two kinds of Democrats in Congress,the scammers and those they scammed.

Denying another country aid that has been approved by Congress to persuade them to investigate a political rival is not frequently done...can you cite another example?

Where does the Constitution give the President Executive Privilege to impede an investigation into him?
The whole idea of impeachment is as a final curb on the President should he go rogue.
How can that be effective if the person for which the impeachment clause was intended can set the rules?

Trump asked Zelensky to cooperate with an ongoing investigation into the 2016 election, and certainly Joe Biden's December 2015 trip to Ukraine to threaten the President of Ukraine with a cutoff of US aid unless he helped cover up the Hunter Biden scandal before the 2016 elections was a part of it. Your claim that Biden should get immunity for his actions because he hopes to be running against Trump is bizarre and ridiculous.

Executive privilege is not mentioned in the Constitution at all, but the courts have recognized it is sometimes necessary, however, it has always before been treated as a civil matter and never before as a criminal matter. If the Democrats believed the President had improperly cited executive privilege, the proper course of action is to take it to the courts to decide, but to insist Congress can demand anything it wants from the executive branch is an assault of the Constitution's separation of powers.

Biden's threat to Ukraine was a bipartisan Congress-approved position to remove a prosecutor that was internationally acknowledged as corrupt.
There was no scandal.

Executive privilege isn't mentioned but to think that the Framers would approve the tool they intended as the final mechanism to rein in an out of control or dangerous President could be nullified by that same President is what's bizarre and ridiculous

Now you are just making things up. Congress did not approve Biden's threat to Poroshenko and we just saw sworn testimony that the Obama administration was worried about how the Hunter Biden scandal would play out in the 2016 elections. Congress was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, but Biden was only concerned with firing the prosecutor who was investigation the corrupt company that was paying Hunter Biden outrageous amounts of money in the hope they were buying the protection of the Obama administration.

We have no idea what the founders might have thought about executive privilege but the courts have held it is sometimes necessary and if the Democrats thought this was not such a case, the proper course was to take the issue to the courts. By not doing so and adding the bizarre charge of obstruction of Congress, the Democrats not only assaulted the Constitution's separation of powers between the executive branch and the legislative branch but also usurped the power of the judiciary.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The republicans were not allowed to call witnesess nor question any witness.

That's simply not true.
What were you watching...it certainly wasn't the impeachment enquiry?

Of course it's true. Schiff stopped Republican questions whenever he thought they would be damaging to his case and denied many witnesses the Republicans requested. There was no House investigation. It was just a political show. The Democrats made America look like a third world country.

That's not what you claimed.
You said "republicans were not allowed to call witnesess nor question any witness".
That's clearly false.

lol A distinction without a difference: the fix was in.

 

[task0778]

It's a political one. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be conducted with fairness, where both sides get an equal chance to state their case, call witnesses, and cross-examine the other side's witnesses. Which is part of what due process means. That doesn't mean the Dems or Repubs have to be impartial, that ain't going to happen in political processes. But at least both sides should get their say.

But, if one side refuses to participate how can they then whine about lack of fairness and due process?

The Republicans didn't refuse to participate. In the hearings, Schiff would not allow them to ask tough questions or to call witnesses.

But...the Republican had their witnesses.
It didn't go well for them as I recall.

They didn't get the witnesses they wanted and weren't allowed to ask the questions they wanted to. This was a Democratic political stunt, not a serious impeachment. From the beginning it was clear the President would not be convicted by the Senate. It was just another platform from which the Democrats could scream at the President.

Consider the bizarre "charges". Asking another country to cooperate with an investigation was called an abuse of power, but countries frequently do that, and citing executive privilege to deny Congress what they asked for was called obstruction of Congress; if that is an impeachable offense, every president could be impeached. Clearly, there are only two kinds of Democrats in Congress,the scammers and those they scammed.

Denying another country aid that has been approved by Congress to persuade them to investigate a political rival is not frequently done...can you cite another example?

Where does the Constitution give the President Executive Privilege to impede an investigation into him?
The whole idea of impeachment is as a final curb on the President should he go rogue.
How can that be effective if the person for which the impeachment clause was intended can set the rules?

Denying another country aid that has been approved by Congress to persuade them to investigate a political rival is not frequently done...can you cite another example?

A State Department witness who testified before California Rep. Adam Schiff’s impeachment inquiry last week confirmed that the U.S. delayed aid to multiple foreign countries during the past year for a variety of reasons.
.
.
The Washington Times reported that Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale testified that delaying aid to other countries besides Ukraine happened multiple times in 2019.

Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas asked Hale, “Is it fair to say that in the Trump administration U.S. aid is withheld from foreign countries for a number of factors?”

He answered in the affirmative.

“And you’ve testified in your prior testimony that it is normal to have delays on aid?” Ratcliffe said, to which Hale confirmed, “It does occur.”

Hale also verified that Ukraine was not the only country to have aid withheld, testifying that others included Pakistan, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Lebanon.
.
.
In summary, Ratcliffe asked, “So it’s fair to say that aid has been withheld from several countries across the globe for various reasons, and, in some cases, for reasons that are still unknown just in the past year?”

“Correct, sir,” Hale replied.

Impeachment Witness Testifies Delaying Foreign Aid Is Common Tactic


How can that be effective if the person for which the impeachment clause was intended can set the rules?

Trump doesn't set the rules, and you know that. And BTW, Trump didn't go rogue. He didn't get his requested investigations intot he Bidens and Ukraine did get their foreign aid.

 

[idb]

But...the Republican had their witnesses.
It didn't go well for them as I recall.

They didn't get the witnesses they wanted and weren't allowed to ask the questions they wanted to. This was a Democratic political stunt, not a serious impeachment. From the beginning it was clear the President would not be convicted by the Senate. It was just another platform from which the Democrats could scream at the President.

Consider the bizarre "charges". Asking another country to cooperate with an investigation was called an abuse of power, but countries frequently do that, and citing executive privilege to deny Congress what they asked for was called obstruction of Congress; if that is an impeachable offense, every president could be impeached. Clearly, there are only two kinds of Democrats in Congress,the scammers and those they scammed.

But...the Republican had their witnesses.
It didn't go well for them as I recall.

They didn't get the witnesses they wanted and weren't allowed to ask the questions they wanted to. This was a Democratic political stunt, not a serious impeachment. From the beginning it was clear the President would not be convicted by the Senate. It was just another platform from which the Democrats could scream at the President.

Consider the bizarre "charges". Asking another country to cooperate with an investigation was called an abuse of power, but countries frequently do that, and citing executive privilege to deny Congress what they asked for was called obstruction of Congress; if that is an impeachable offense, every president could be impeached. Clearly, there are only two kinds of Democrats in Congress,the scammers and those they scammed.

Denying another country aid that has been approved by Congress to persuade them to investigate a political rival is not frequently done...can you cite another example?

Where does the Constitution give the President Executive Privilege to impede an investigation into him?
The whole idea of impeachment is as a final curb on the President should he go rogue.
How can that be effective if the person for which the impeachment clause was intended can set the rules?

Trump asked Zelensky to cooperate with an ongoing investigation into the 2016 election, and certainly Joe Biden's December 2015 trip to Ukraine to threaten the President of Ukraine with a cutoff of US aid unless he helped cover up the Hunter Biden scandal before the 2016 elections was a part of it. Your claim that Biden should get immunity for his actions because he hopes to be running against Trump is bizarre and ridiculous.

Executive privilege is not mentioned in the Constitution at all, but the courts have recognized it is sometimes necessary, however, it has always before been treated as a civil matter and never before as a criminal matter. If the Democrats believed the President had improperly cited executive privilege, the proper course of action is to take it to the courts to decide, but to insist Congress can demand anything it wants from the executive branch is an assault of the Constitution's separation of powers.

Biden's threat to Ukraine was a bipartisan Congress-approved position to remove a prosecutor that was internationally acknowledged as corrupt.
There was no scandal.

Executive privilege isn't mentioned but to think that the Framers would approve the tool they intended as the final mechanism to rein in an out of control or dangerous President could be nullified by that same President is what's bizarre and ridiculous

Now you are just making things up. Congress did not approve Biden's threat to Poroshenko and we just saw sworn testimony that the Obama administration was worried about how the Hunter Biden scandal would play out in the 2016 elections. Congress was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, but Biden was only concerned with firing the prosecutor who was investigation the corrupt company that was paying Hunter Biden outrageous amounts of money in the hope they were buying the protection of the Obama administration.

We have no idea what the founders might have thought about executive privilege but the courts have held it is sometimes necessary and if the Democrats thought this was not such a case, the proper course was to take the issue to the courts. By not doing so and adding the bizarre charge of obstruction of Congress, the Democrats not only assaulted the Constitution's separation of powers between the executive branch and the legislative branch but also usurped the power of the judiciary.

**gasp**...you're calling me out for making stuff up?!!!!
At least you're now starting to make cogent arguments.
The investigation into Burisma was focusing on a period before Biden joined the company and had been suspended for months prior to Biden's actions.
Shokin's ousting was also supported by many members of the international community and Congress.and the pressure on Ukraine had been building for months before Biden took his action.
Hunter most likely got the job because of who his dad was...sure...and that sort of thing goes on all the time and it sucks...but it doesn't make it corrupt or illegal - it allows a company to look more connected than they might be.

 

[Zorro!]

That's right. There is no way a jury can determine guilt or innocence without even knowing what the defendant was charged with. And before someone says "Yea but the judge can dismiss the charges" I will quickly have to remind them that without articles given to the Senate, no formal charges have been filed.

The act of "impeachment" is not complete legally until the articles of impeachment are given to the Senate.

This is not a normal criminal process, but a Constitutional process, so the legal process analogy doesnt necessarily apply here.

A judge can throw out an indictment on its merits without a trial. McConnell can do that and nothing says he has to actually hold the trial.

And since the articles of impeachment are part of the public record, the Senate knows what what anyway.

The Constitution does not require the House to formally present charges before they vote to dismiss the charges or simply toss them out. That is simply an agreed tradition, and the Dims have spit on every tradition that gets in their way, so no reason for Republicans to be so inhibited as well.

Actually the Senate has very elaborate impeachment rules that cover the receiving of charges from the managers and it takes 67 votes to approve a rule change. If the House doesn't want to actually bring charges, McConnell says he's fine with that, he doesn't really want a trial anyway.

We do know that the House isn't going to vote again until Jan 8 so clearly the claim that this was so urgent that it couldn't be left to voters is an obvious crock.

They are making a huge mess out of this, they've gotten cold feet, they are thrashing about impotently, so, what need is there for the GOP to jump in and rescue them?

It's not that they are getting cold feet. It's that this was never a serious attempt to remove the President, just a political stunt. There was never a chance the Senate would convict the President on such ridiculous charges, so all of this was for nothing. They did all of this because Trump won the 2016 election. Imagine how crazy they are going to be after the 2020 election.

So...its not an attempted coup now?
Good grief it's hard to keep up!!

Yes. They are trying, and failing, to drive him from office.

 

[Zorro!]

This is not a normal criminal process, but a Constitutional process, so the legal process analogy doesnt necessarily apply here.

A judge can throw out an indictment on its merits without a trial. McConnell can do that and nothing says he has to actually hold the trial.

And since the articles of impeachment are part of the public record, the Senate knows what what anyway.

The Constitution does not require the House to formally present charges before they vote to dismiss the charges or simply toss them out. That is simply an agreed tradition, and the Dims have spit on every tradition that gets in their way, so no reason for Republicans to be so inhibited as well.

So, if it's not a legal process why are the Republicans whining about the lack of "due process"?

Because it's supposed to be a legal process, but the Democrats made a mockery of the impeachment process, spit on the institution of the presidency and tried to tear down the Constitution's separation of powers. They showed no respect for America and they do not deserve to be respected by America.

So is JimBowie wrong?
Is Mitch McConnell wrong when he says ..."I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision. The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all," said McConnell.

Is Chuck Schumer impartial and undecided?

Stick to the point.
Is impeachment a judicial process or a political one?

What's important is that it's perceived as fair and this one is a witch hunt that had a pre-ordained outcome in the House, once it gets to the Senate it will die a quick death.

 

[beagle9]

The Republicans didn't refuse to participate. In the hearings, Schiff would not allow them to ask tough questions or to call witnesses.

But...the Republican had their witnesses.
It didn't go well for them as I recall.

They didn't get the witnesses they wanted and weren't allowed to ask the questions they wanted to. This was a Democratic political stunt, not a serious impeachment. From the beginning it was clear the President would not be convicted by the Senate. It was just another platform from which the Democrats could scream at the President.

Consider the bizarre "charges". Asking another country to cooperate with an investigation was called an abuse of power, but countries frequently do that, and citing executive privilege to deny Congress what they asked for was called obstruction of Congress; if that is an impeachable offense, every president could be impeached. Clearly, there are only two kinds of Democrats in Congress,the scammers and those they scammed.

The Republicans didn't refuse to participate. In the hearings, Schiff would not allow them to ask tough questions or to call witnesses.

But...the Republican had their witnesses.
It didn't go well for them as I recall.

They didn't get the witnesses they wanted and weren't allowed to ask the questions they wanted to. This was a Democratic political stunt, not a serious impeachment. From the beginning it was clear the President would not be convicted by the Senate. It was just another platform from which the Democrats could scream at the President.

Consider the bizarre "charges". Asking another country to cooperate with an investigation was called an abuse of power, but countries frequently do that, and citing executive privilege to deny Congress what they asked for was called obstruction of Congress; if that is an impeachable offense, every president could be impeached. Clearly, there are only two kinds of Democrats in Congress,the scammers and those they scammed.

Denying another country aid that has been approved by Congress to persuade them to investigate a political rival is not frequently done...can you cite another example?

Where does the Constitution give the President Executive Privilege to impede an investigation into him?
The whole idea of impeachment is as a final curb on the President should he go rogue.
How can that be effective if the person for which the impeachment clause was intended can set the rules?

Trump asked Zelensky to cooperate with an ongoing investigation into the 2016 election, and certainly Joe Biden's December 2015 trip to Ukraine to threaten the President of Ukraine with a cutoff of US aid unless he helped cover up the Hunter Biden scandal before the 2016 elections was a part of it. Your claim that Biden should get immunity for his actions because he hopes to be running against Trump is bizarre and ridiculous.

Executive privilege is not mentioned in the Constitution at all, but the courts have recognized it is sometimes necessary, however, it has always before been treated as a civil matter and never before as a criminal matter. If the Democrats believed the President had improperly cited executive privilege, the proper course of action is to take it to the courts to decide, but to insist Congress can demand anything it wants from the executive branch is an assault of the Constitution's separation of powers.

Biden's threat to Ukraine was a bipartisan Congress-approved position to remove a prosecutor that was internationally acknowledged as corrupt.
There was no scandal.

Executive privilege isn't mentioned but to think that the Framers would approve the tool they intended as the final mechanism to rein in an out of control or dangerous President could be nullified by that same President is what's bizarre and ridiculous

Biden took credit as the trigger when blabbing from his snide arrogant mouth, and it sure didn't help his case that his son was involved rather conveniently. Where'd the money go that was being paid by Burisma ?? Strip clubs and bars ??

 

[keepitreal]

This whole thing is so corrupt.

It’s really ridiculous and I hope the Dimms lose the house.

What do we have a Supreme Court for?

If there are supposed to be checks and balances
over each other....
WHO IS CHECKING CONGRESS

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY MIND BOGGLING

WHAT
THE
****

 

[beagle9]

This whole thing is so corrupt.

It’s really ridiculous and I hope the Dimms lose the house.

What do we have a Supreme Court for?

If there are supposed to be checks and balances
over each other....
WHO IS CHECKING CONGRESS

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY MIND BOGGLING

WHAT
THE
****

It's political. Nothing makes sense, and it never will.

 

[justoffal]

The Constitution gives the Senate the right to try the impeachment, and does not require it to accept it from the House formally.

LMAO!!!

You can't really be taking that crap seriously.

Can you?

I'm not sure what you're asking but the answer is yes of course they can hold a trial.... they absolutely do not need the permission of the House of Representatives to do it. Having said that I don't think McConnell gives two shits if Pelosi keeps those things up her skirt forever, that'll be just fine too. It's actually pretty comical when you think about it.

So after 12 months of complete and utter bullshit the new threat is to not have the impeachment hearing???? I mean dude how much more hilarious could this be?

Jo

 

[OldLady]

The Constitution gives the Senate the right to try the impeachment, and does not require it to accept it from the House formally.

Mitch McConnell can hold the trial even if Nancy never sends it to him.

Pollak: Senate Can Acquit Even If House Withholds Articles of Impeachment | Breitbart

If Pelosi refuses to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, McConnell can convene the Senate anyway, summon the Chief Justice, and swear in the Senators as jurors. Democrats can boycott, but they can’t stop the trial.

McConnell can then propose to dismiss the charges or even hold a vote to acquit the president.

Pelosi can hide the articles of impeachment in Adam Schiff’s basement forever, and it won’t make a bit of difference.​

The Democratic Party is led by blithering idiots, while the GOP is led behind the curtain by cuck Koch sell outs.

She'll send them. This ain't her first rodeo; she knows what she's doing.