Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Impeachment] for ... Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors

2456749

Posts

  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Also as an aside, if the GOP is thinking turning on Trump. Reps that represent districts like VA-01 and VA-05 are the ones I would watched. Those are the kinds of districts were they would probably drop trail balloons to see if maybe they should stop enabling Trump for the sake of power.

  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Trump must be feeling pretty confident on the impeachment inquiry to dare to go against the neocons in Syria.

    trump doesn't know what a neocon is and couldn't find syria on a map if it was the only thing there.

    additionally, he couldn't even finish reading your comment

    he just did something he thought might make trump happy and now he'll stick with it until he feels like doing something else

    SyphonBlueNo-QuarterMarathonKristmas KthulhuArdolDoctor DetroitMild ConfusionDouglasDangerBrodyGnome-InterruptusBhowCommander ZoomTicaldfjamtynicemp123davidsdurionsCantidedurandal4532Stabbity StyleA Dabble Of TheloniusMagellAbsalonDisco11shrykemiscellaneousinsanityabotkinAegeriElvenshaeLord_AsmodeusMrVyngaardNobeardGennenalyse RuebenEmerlmaster999ToxjdarksunMatevShadowfireSanguinius666264SmrtnikFencingsaxElldrenSolarTofystedethA Kobold's Koboldmjn6172Label
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Also as an aside, if the GOP is thinking turning on Trump. Reps that represent districts like VA-01 and VA-05 are the ones I would watched. Those are the kinds of districts were they would probably drop trail balloons to see if maybe they should stop enabling Trump for the sake of power.

    They aren't

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
    TryCatcherXaquinSkeithNightslyrTetraNitroCubaneIncenjucarExtreaminatusVishNubCantidedurandal4532DocStabbity StyleJaysonFourshrykeAistanChomp-ChompAegeriProhassNobeardYoutubeEmerlmaster999ToxSorceAbsoluteZeroHiroconmjn6172
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Trump must be feeling pretty confident on the impeachment inquiry to dare to go against the neocons in Syria.

    Or he's just stupid and is putting his face in a beartrap, but has thus far gotten away with it by being luckier than Mr. fucking Magoo.

    XaquinMild ConfusionElvenshaeGennenalyse RuebenMan in the MistsElldren
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    So probably the republican congress critters to watch for if the dam is about to break or if things are looking dire for Trump, but falling short of dam breaking. Are going to be Rep Wittman (VA 01 R) and Rep. Riggleman (VA 05 R). Both districts are purple, but skew enough to the GOP side, that if they jump ship, it probably means that Trump is done. I'd also be looking at districts and states will similar partisan leans as those two's districts for other critters to keep an eye on.

    I also see the asshat GOP trying to liken the whistle blowers coming forward to the Kavanaugh scandal, where they confirmed a rapist, by claiming that more people coming forward doesn't make it more reliable. They clearly do not get how the intelligence community works. That shit is documented for a variety of reasons. Still no word on if any of the new whistle blowers have knowledge of scandals outside of the one involving Ukraine.

    The other end of it is that if you're whistle blowing, theres a good chance that you've just crippled your career since keeping secrets is job one for spies and for bettter or worse you just showed you can't be trusted to do that.

    Also regarding the image I linked earlier and how it's pertinient to the discussion at hand, swamp thing was once a man like any of the rest of us who became an extension of the swamp amd actively sought to defend it and all other forms of plant life. So it is with trump in that he has suffused himself into the swamp of graft and corrruption that plagues DC's underbelly with gusto; hence why I can only roll my eyes at this whole fig leaf of trump's indignation that Biden might have done something years ago.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    Youtube
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Also as an aside, if the GOP is thinking turning on Trump. Reps that represent districts like VA-01 and VA-05 are the ones I would watched. Those are the kinds of districts were they would probably drop trail balloons to see if maybe they should stop enabling Trump for the sake of power.

    They aren't

    Given that Fox news is having a bit of a schism over how to cover this I'm less confident in this.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    MorganVspool32MillNitsuamonikerZonugalMunkus BeaverBrodyMild Confusionemp123davidsdurionsStabbity StyleForarabotkinCaptain CarrotElvenshaeLord_Asmodeusyossarian_livesMan in the MistsHeirToxjdarksunMatevHacksawFencingsaxElldrenTofystedethA Kobold's KoboldLabel
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited October 7
    Gaddez wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Also as an aside, if the GOP is thinking turning on Trump. Reps that represent districts like VA-01 and VA-05 are the ones I would watched. Those are the kinds of districts were they would probably drop trail balloons to see if maybe they should stop enabling Trump for the sake of power.

    They aren't

    Given that Fox news is having a bit of a schism over how to cover this I'm less confident in this.

    Fox needs to keep themselves positioned as the GOP hype machine regardless of what happens. I think their game has become "managing expectations," so that the party is seen as being right regardless of what happens between impeachment and the election.

    Considering the built in ear-to-the-ground Fox has (with its producer offices full of campaign workers and surrogates) that in and of itself might be a strong indication that impeachment isn't actually a settled issue, I think the most likely outcome is a brokered "who-gets-to-vote" deal like the Obamacare repeal where the vote fails by 1-2 votes, the party plays up a big schism over it, and Trump's gone and forgotten six minutes after being dragged kicking and screaming out of office at the end of his term(s).

    Hevach on
    Gnome-InterruptusshrykekimeNobeard
  • FawstFawst The road to awe.Registered User regular
    Lindsey Graham is concerned about Trump’s latest bullshit re: Turkey. That may as well be pulling the fire alarm.

    Heir
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    If there is one thing I've learned with the shit show that is the modern GOP. Never say never. I mean, I've listed off a number of cases where people said, "that'll never happen!" coughDougcough choughJonescough choughKansascough

    Also worth pointing out the cesspool that is the current GOP existed before Trump and they were planning on being around after Trump. Dude is not integral to the party's continued survival. If it makes sense to ice his ace, that's what they are going to do. Right now, they just think the public is clueless and can be persuaded to believe this isn't that bad. I imagine they'll start abandoning those plans given that the media is not having it and Fox seems to be schism over this shit. The GOP is full of opportunistic rat fuckers currently, do not confuse that with loyalty. In fact, that is a very volatile setup that often leads to tons of backstabbing; especially, when the shit hits the fan.

    IncenjucarRoyceSraphimjmcdonaldelectricitylikesmeMan in the MistsFencingsax
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited October 7
    Fawst wrote: »
    Lindsey Graham is concerned about Trump’s latest bullshit re: Turkey. That may as well be pulling the fire alarm.

    he's always concerned about something

    all republicans are

    the thing they are concerned with most though is keeping their jobs, and since keeping their jobs is synonymous with lustily stroking trumps ego, they will never ever cross him in any meaningful way.

    Xaquin on
    Kayne Red RobeLadaiCommander ZoomMild Confusiontynicdurandal4532DocStabbity Stylechrono_travellerShazkar ShadowstormLovelyDacTuminshrykeNightslyrAistanabotkinelectricitylikesmeElvenshaeAegeriMrVyngaardkimeNobeardYoutubeEmerlmaster999ToxMatevSanguinius666264SorceAbsoluteZeroFencingsaxRhesus PositiveMoridin889LeeksTransporterHiroconLabel
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Fawst wrote: »
    Lindsey Graham is concerned about Trump’s latest bullshit re: Turkey. That may as well be pulling the fire alarm.

    Nah its the usual "this is where I stamp my foot and pout a bit" before he goes on another sunday show and goes "The real issue with syria and turkey is what Biden did there."

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    XaquinZibblsnrtSyphonBlueLegacyBrodyDarkPrimusGnome-InterruptusDisruptedCapitalistdestroyah87Mild ConfusionKristmas KthulhuDaenrisTicaldfjamRickRudeemp123ButtersStabbity StyleQuidNightslyrabotkinelectricitylikesmeElvenshaeAegerikimeNobeardMan in the MistsYoutubeEmerlmaster999ToxMatevSanguinius666264SorceAbsoluteZeroSkeithFencingsaxElldrenSolarMoridin889LeeksTransporterA Kobold's KoboldHiroconLabel
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Fawst wrote: »
    Lindsey Graham is concerned about Trump’s latest bullshit re: Turkey. That may as well be pulling the fire alarm.

    he's always concerned about something

    all republicans are

    the thing they are concerned with most though is keeping their jobs, and since keeping their jobs is synonymous with lustily stroking trumps ego, they will never ever cross him in any meaningful way.

    Thoughts and prayers

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    XaquinGnome-InterruptusMild ConfusionKristmas KthulhuTicaldfjamjmcdonaldCantideemp123Stabbity StyleshrykeZonugalabotkinNobeardMan in the MistsEmerlmaster999ToxMatevSorceSkeithFencingsaxSolarLeeks
  • RoyceSraphimRoyceSraphim Registered User regular
    Per my post in the last thread.

    Do people believe Mc Mitch will allow a trial before november 2020?

    zepherinJaysonFour
  • Doctor DetroitDoctor Detroit Registered User regular
    Mitch is also not happy about it.

    If there’s any evidence that Trump’s doing it because of Putin or his building in Istanbul, that might, might be enough to start turning the tide.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus premium Registered User regular
    Mitch is also not happy about it.

    If there’s any evidence that Trump’s doing it because of Putin or his building in Istanbul, that might, might be enough to start turning the tide.

    There are McConnell re-election ads running where he promises to stonewall any impeachment proceedings.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    XaquinsouthwickLadaiTryCatcherKristmas KthulhuDoodmannLegacyJaysonFourDouglasDangerNightslyrshrykeElvenshaeMrVyngaardNobeardGennenalyse RuebenMan in the MistsYoutubeEmerlmaster999ToxjdarksunIncenjucarAbsoluteZeroFencingsaxMoridin889Hirocon
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited October 7
    Per my post in the last thread.

    Do people believe Mc Mitch will allow a trial before november 2020?

    I think it would be dangerous for the GoP, because then it would look like they're trying to avoid their constitutional duties so they don't have to go on the record for voting for or against removing Trump. It would be the surest sign that the Senate would remove his ass in an instant if he didn't have such an absolute sway on the GOP base, and I think there are enough complete sycophants or true believers with microphone that would say that to prove they're more loyal to Trump than Mitch is.

    That said, I'm betting the reason Dem leadership wants this to be ready for a vote sooner rather than later is to make it harder for Mitch to spin something like that as a "we're letting the people decide" decision, rather than "we're too afraid of losing our jobs to actually do our job" decision.

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
    BlackDragon480DoodmannElvenshae
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    The Turkey thing feels like paying back some favors as the whole thing starts crumbling.

    I think they're less confident about GOP votes than we think they should be.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    ArdolshrykeElvenshaeNobeardToxjdarksunNo-QuarterLabel
  • NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    NPR had a interesting discussion about the impeachment process a few days ago.

    Basically it came down to this. There aren't a lot of codified written down norms for how an impeachment progresses. So in the past, they kinda winged it.

    So before, after impeachment made it through the house and into the Senate, they had congressmen come up and give speeches basically either supporting the removal from office or defending the president. Lots of em. But that's not a required way of doing things.

    But apparently what Mitch can do is immediately after impeachment passes the house, he can just call for a vote to dismiss it on the grounds of "they don't have enough votes so lets not waste any time on this." Which lets them completely skip the part where the House tries to convince the Senate of something.

  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    The Turkey thing feels like paying back some favors as the whole thing starts crumbling.

    I think they're less confident about GOP votes than we think they should be.

    My hunch is that this is exactly it. I suspect that many of these calls in Trump's secret server include deals that have some sort of personal upside from Trump himself. Now that it seems like the wheels are coming off, everyone is going to rush to cash in the Trump Rep they have accrued, which will result in more "inexplicable" behavior from the Trump administration and the wheels coming off further.



    Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Mitch is also not happy about it.

    If there’s any evidence that Trump’s doing it because of Putin or his building in Istanbul, that might, might be enough to start turning the tide.

    There are McConnell re-election ads running where he promises to stonewall any impeachment proceedings.

    Everyone please keep in mind when considering Mitch McConnell that Oleg Deripaska, one of the Russian oligarchs sanctioned, has been heavily investing millions of dollars into Kentucky.

    Also, Oleg is a business associate of Manafort.

    He’s called Moscow Mitch for a reason.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    ExtreaminatusXaquinKristmas KthulhuTicaldfjamMarathonStabbity StyleDoodmannDarkPrimusMunkus Beaverautono-wally, erotibot300Bullheadoverride367AegisCambiataForarJaysonFourShazkar ShadowstormDouglasDangerGnome-InterruptusNightslyrshrykeChanusabotkinelectricitylikesmeLord_AsmodeusElvenshaeAegeriMrVyngaardNobeardGennenalyse RuebenMan in the MistsRickRudeYoutubeEmerlmaster999ToxHeirjdarksunIncenjucarMatevDark Raven XSanguinius666264HacksawSorceSkeithFencingsaxElldrenMoridin889No-QuarterTransporterA Kobold's KoboldHiroconCommunistCowmjn6172Labelvalhalla130
  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    edited October 7
    Also Senate dems had to force a vote against Trump admin rescinding Deripaska-specific sanctions that easily passed in the house. Some 'pubs defected but not enough to override veto. You can bet McConnell was holding the line.

    rahkeesh2000 on
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    It’s probably going to take public opinion of Trump and his numerous crimes going to such a negative point that it threatens Senate Republican’s chances of holding seats/the chamber before we see them turn on Trump.

    The good news is that we have a bunch of new whistleblowers, so chances of the public getting fed up with Trump and his crimes is an actual possibility.

    Obviously something close to 30% of the country think Trump has done nothing wrong, but those voters alone aren’t enough to keep the GOP afloat.

    Butters
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    NotYou wrote: »
    NPR had a interesting discussion about the impeachment process a few days ago.

    Basically it came down to this. There aren't a lot of codified written down norms for how an impeachment progresses. So in the past, they kinda winged it.

    So before, after impeachment made it through the house and into the Senate, they had congressmen come up and give speeches basically either supporting the removal from office or defending the president. Lots of em. But that's not a required way of doing things.

    But apparently what Mitch can do is immediately after impeachment passes the house, he can just call for a vote to dismiss it on the grounds of "they don't have enough votes so lets not waste any time on this." Which lets them completely skip the part where the House tries to convince the Senate of something.

    No, I don't think anything says he can do that and if he tries that gets fast tracked to SCOTUS.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    NPR had a interesting discussion about the impeachment process a few days ago.

    Basically it came down to this. There aren't a lot of codified written down norms for how an impeachment progresses. So in the past, they kinda winged it.

    So before, after impeachment made it through the house and into the Senate, they had congressmen come up and give speeches basically either supporting the removal from office or defending the president. Lots of em. But that's not a required way of doing things.

    But apparently what Mitch can do is immediately after impeachment passes the house, he can just call for a vote to dismiss it on the grounds of "they don't have enough votes so lets not waste any time on this." Which lets them completely skip the part where the House tries to convince the Senate of something.

    No, I don't think anything says he can do that and if he tries that gets fast tracked to SCOTUS.

    No, he just says "Lets vote for impeachment. Yea or Nea. Tally 'em up." And then the Senate votes and its all over.

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
    Gnome-InterruptusJaysonFourSpoitKayne Red RobeToxSyphonBlueSmrtnik
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    NPR had a interesting discussion about the impeachment process a few days ago.

    Basically it came down to this. There aren't a lot of codified written down norms for how an impeachment progresses. So in the past, they kinda winged it.

    So before, after impeachment made it through the house and into the Senate, they had congressmen come up and give speeches basically either supporting the removal from office or defending the president. Lots of em. But that's not a required way of doing things.

    But apparently what Mitch can do is immediately after impeachment passes the house, he can just call for a vote to dismiss it on the grounds of "they don't have enough votes so lets not waste any time on this." Which lets them completely skip the part where the House tries to convince the Senate of something.

    No, I don't think anything says he can do that and if he tries that gets fast tracked to SCOTUS.

    No, he just says "Lets vote for impeachment. Yea or Nea. Tally 'em up." And then the Senate votes and its all over.

    Also goes to SCOTUS. Plus he absolutely can't actually call the vote for conviction - that would be Roberts. He can try and bind Roberts with bullshit rules, but Roberts can force him to take it to SCOTUS....

    Truthfully I don't see any outcome except SCOTUS or conviction here.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    edited October 7
    Fawst wrote: »
    Lindsey Graham is concerned about Trump’s latest bullshit re: Turkey. That may as well be pulling the fire alarm.

    Lindsay Graham has been concerned with a lot of stuff Trump does and says. Inevitibly he'll either stop voicing those concerns, or do a 180 and support them because Trump blustered on through.

    Undead Scottsman on
    Xaquindurandal4532KruiteshrykeKristmas KthulhuMild ConfusionThawmusGnome-InterruptusForarQuidZonugalabotkinelectricitylikesmeLord_AsmodeusDarkPrimusNobeardKayne Red RobeMan in the MistsElvenshaeEmerlmaster999ToxCantideNobodyemp123SyphonBlueIncenjucarBlackDragon480ArdolHacksawSorceRoyceSraphimFencingsaxElldrenTofystedethTransporterqwer12Label
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Brody wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    NPR had a interesting discussion about the impeachment process a few days ago.

    Basically it came down to this. There aren't a lot of codified written down norms for how an impeachment progresses. So in the past, they kinda winged it.

    So before, after impeachment made it through the house and into the Senate, they had congressmen come up and give speeches basically either supporting the removal from office or defending the president. Lots of em. But that's not a required way of doing things.

    But apparently what Mitch can do is immediately after impeachment passes the house, he can just call for a vote to dismiss it on the grounds of "they don't have enough votes so lets not waste any time on this." Which lets them completely skip the part where the House tries to convince the Senate of something.

    No, I don't think anything says he can do that and if he tries that gets fast tracked to SCOTUS.

    No, he just says "Lets vote for impeachment. Yea or Nea. Tally 'em up." And then the Senate votes and its all over.

    Also goes to SCOTUS. Plus he absolutely can't actually call the vote for conviction - that would be Roberts. He can try and bind Roberts with bullshit rules, but Roberts can force him to take it to SCOTUS....

    Truthfully I don't see any outcome except SCOTUS or conviction here.

    Thing is that SCOTUS ruled once in US v Nixon (completely different Nixon from that one) that impeachment is a 100% political process, and therefore outside of judicial review.

    Now, I'd like to think that McConnell attempting to not do the trial at all will get shot down because the Constitution says the Senate "shall" have the trial, but if he wants to have the vote five minutes in, there isn't much the courts would be willing to do.

    steam_sig.png
    YoutubeRoyceSraphim
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Mitch is also not happy about it.

    If there’s any evidence that Trump’s doing it because of Putin or his building in Istanbul, that might, might be enough to start turning the tide.

    There are McConnell re-election ads running where he promises to stonewall any impeachment proceedings.

    Everyone please keep in mind when considering Mitch McConnell that Oleg Deripaska, one of the Russian oligarchs sanctioned, has been heavily investing millions of dollars into Kentucky.

    Also, Oleg is a business associate of Manafort.

    He’s called Moscow Mitch for a reason.

    Really hope that Amy McGrath capitalizes on this shit. Pointing out how she had to swear an oath of duty, multiple times, to her country and the Constitution, and that McConnell, is at the very least complicit in allowing the President to break his oath.

    McConnell can use whatever dodge he wants to pretend he isn't obligated to hold a vote, or whatever dickery he'll do to make sure that the Senate abrogates their responsibility in holding the Criminal-In-Chief accountable. But there's no denying that by doing that, he's allowing the President to get away with high crimes.

    Kentucky, and the country, deserves better.

    XaquinMild ConfusionForarJaysonFourCantidoBullheadMan in the MistsElvenshaeEmerlmaster999HeirjdarksunCantideSyphonBlueMatevBlackDragon480ArdolSorceFencingsaxRoyceSraphimElldrenTofystedethMoridin889A Kobold's KoboldLabel
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Brody wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    NPR had a interesting discussion about the impeachment process a few days ago.

    Basically it came down to this. There aren't a lot of codified written down norms for how an impeachment progresses. So in the past, they kinda winged it.

    So before, after impeachment made it through the house and into the Senate, they had congressmen come up and give speeches basically either supporting the removal from office or defending the president. Lots of em. But that's not a required way of doing things.

    But apparently what Mitch can do is immediately after impeachment passes the house, he can just call for a vote to dismiss it on the grounds of "they don't have enough votes so lets not waste any time on this." Which lets them completely skip the part where the House tries to convince the Senate of something.

    No, I don't think anything says he can do that and if he tries that gets fast tracked to SCOTUS.

    No, he just says "Lets vote for impeachment. Yea or Nea. Tally 'em up." And then the Senate votes and its all over.

    Also goes to SCOTUS. Plus he absolutely can't actually call the vote for conviction - that would be Roberts. He can try and bind Roberts with bullshit rules, but Roberts can force him to take it to SCOTUS....

    Truthfully I don't see any outcome except SCOTUS or conviction here.

    Thing is that SCOTUS ruled once in US v Nixon (completely different Nixon from that one) that impeachment is a 100% political process, and therefore outside of judicial review.

    Now, I'd like to think that McConnell attempting to not do the trial at all will get shot down because the Constitution says the Senate "shall" have the trial, but if he wants to have the vote five minutes in, there isn't much the courts would be willing to do.

    So McConnel cant actually force Roberts to preside over a rigged "trial" is what you're telling me, since he can't go to SCOTUS if Roberts ignores him?

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    NPR had a interesting discussion about the impeachment process a few days ago.

    Basically it came down to this. There aren't a lot of codified written down norms for how an impeachment progresses. So in the past, they kinda winged it.

    So before, after impeachment made it through the house and into the Senate, they had congressmen come up and give speeches basically either supporting the removal from office or defending the president. Lots of em. But that's not a required way of doing things.

    But apparently what Mitch can do is immediately after impeachment passes the house, he can just call for a vote to dismiss it on the grounds of "they don't have enough votes so lets not waste any time on this." Which lets them completely skip the part where the House tries to convince the Senate of something.

    No, I don't think anything says he can do that and if he tries that gets fast tracked to SCOTUS.

    No, he just says "Lets vote for impeachment. Yea or Nea. Tally 'em up." And then the Senate votes and its all over.

    From what I was hearing on NPR, it more that he calls for a dismissal on the basis that they don't have enough votes. And then dismiss the impeachment before it goes to a vote for conviction.

    I don't pretend to know actual law on this though...

    SpoitRoyceSraphim
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    There's no rule against multiple impeachments though right? I mean he's committed enough crimes that one could announce a new trial every week.

    discrider
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Yes, but then it looks like a "partisan witch hunt".
    Which he's already been bleating for most of the past three years, but people outside of the FOX core might actually start believing him.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    JaysonFourSpoitGnome-InterruptusYoutubeFencingsax
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    Yes, but then it looks like a "partisan witch hunt".
    Which he's already been bleating for most of the past three years, but people outside of the FOX core might actually start believing him.
    I don't understand why we continue to make the oppositional argument like this. There is no evidence that this is the case.

    PreacherDouglasDangerdestroyah87MorganVAegisZonugalKristmas KthulhuLord_AsmodeusMagellElvenshaeToxCantideMan in the MistsRoyceSraphim
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Yes, but then it looks like a "partisan witch hunt".
    Which he's already been bleating for most of the past three years, but people outside of the FOX core might actually start believing him.
    I don't understand why we continue to make the oppositional argument like this. There is no evidence that this is the case.

    Because we spent what feels like 20 years listening to people scream Benghazi at the top of their lungs, even after repeated investigations failed to find anything of note.

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
    SleepabotkinJaysonFourTetraNitroCubaneSpoitZibblsnrtYoutubeTwenty SidedMatevFencingsaxRoyceSraphimLovelyMoridin889A Kobold's Kobold
  • evilmrhenryevilmrhenry Registered User regular
    NotYou wrote: »
    Brody wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    NPR had a interesting discussion about the impeachment process a few days ago.

    Basically it came down to this. There aren't a lot of codified written down norms for how an impeachment progresses. So in the past, they kinda winged it.

    So before, after impeachment made it through the house and into the Senate, they had congressmen come up and give speeches basically either supporting the removal from office or defending the president. Lots of em. But that's not a required way of doing things.

    But apparently what Mitch can do is immediately after impeachment passes the house, he can just call for a vote to dismiss it on the grounds of "they don't have enough votes so lets not waste any time on this." Which lets them completely skip the part where the House tries to convince the Senate of something.

    No, I don't think anything says he can do that and if he tries that gets fast tracked to SCOTUS.

    No, he just says "Lets vote for impeachment. Yea or Nea. Tally 'em up." And then the Senate votes and its all over.

    From what I was hearing on NPR, it more that he calls for a dismissal on the basis that they don't have enough votes. And then dismiss the impeachment before it goes to a vote for conviction.

    I don't pretend to know actual law on this though...

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/us/politics/senate-trump-impeachment.html
    But as both parties begin to quietly explore their strategic response to potential House action, they are zeroing in on the 1999 Senate impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton for guidance, and that proceeding provides one obvious precedent Republicans could embrace.

    As the trial threatened to gain steam after the Senate had heard from Republican House managers of the impeachment and Mr. Clinton’s defenders, Senator Robert C. Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat and the highly regarded conscience of the Senate who had said the Bible and Constitution would be his guide, moved to dismiss the entire case. Democrats were in the minority at the time, and Mr. Byrd’s surprise proposal was defeated along party lines, forcing the trial to move forward for a total of about five weeks before Mr. Clinton prevailed.

    I feel sinking the impeachment with this tactic would be about as damaging as holding the real vote. It's saying there's nothing here worth impeaching over, while Trump is out there asking foreign governments to interfere in our elections. The main benefit would be to allow stopping it quickly, and hope people have forgotten about this by the time the primary rolls around.

    The other aspect is that this is a 50%+1 vote to kill it, so you need every single Republican to vote for it, which could be deeply damaging for any senators in marginal states.

  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    Yes, but then it looks like a "partisan witch hunt".
    Which he's already been bleating for most of the past three years, but people outside of the FOX core might actually start believing him.
    I don't understand why we continue to make the oppositional argument like this. There is no evidence that this is the case.

    i think it can reasonably be argued that repeatedly trying and failing to convict him after impeachment will seem as much nonsense political posturing as the house voting to repeal the PPACA eighty-some times

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Fawst wrote: »
    Lindsey Graham is concerned about Trump’s latest bullshit re: Turkey. That may as well be pulling the fire alarm.

    I'd be more impressed by his moral outrage if it was backed by any real action.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    ThawmusMorganVabotkinCommander ZoomTetraNitroCubaneduraxDoctor DetroitTicaldfjamEmerlmaster999jdarksunGnome-InterruptusElvenshaeArdolemp123SorceFencingsaxRoyceSraphimElldrenHefflingTofystedethbrynhrtmnA Kobold's KoboldHiroconLabel
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    Yes, but then it looks like a "partisan witch hunt".
    Which he's already been bleating for most of the past three years, but people outside of the FOX core might actually start believing him.
    I don't understand why we continue to make the oppositional argument like this. There is no evidence that this is the case.

    i think it can reasonably be argued that repeatedly trying and failing to convict him after impeachment will seem as much nonsense political posturing as the house voting to repeal the PPACA eighty-some times

    I think the level of public attention as well as outrage would be considerably higher if Mitch shamelessly kills the vote like this though. They can try to hand-wave it away as some partisan hunt, but people are paying much more attention to this than they are to some toothless repeal of Obamacare.

    MorganVMan in the MistsRoyceSraphim
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Yes, but then it looks like a "partisan witch hunt".
    Which he's already been bleating for most of the past three years, but people outside of the FOX core might actually start believing him.
    I don't understand why we continue to make the oppositional argument like this. There is no evidence that this is the case.

    i think it can reasonably be argued that repeatedly trying and failing to convict him after impeachment will seem as much nonsense political posturing as the house voting to repeal the PPACA eighty-some times

    I think the level of public attention as well as outrage would be considerably higher if Mitch shamelessly kills the vote like this though. They can try to hand-wave it away as some partisan hunt, but people are paying much more attention to this than they are to some toothless repeal of Obamacare.

    Yeah, that'd be the key difference. If McConnell at least goes through the pretense of running a proper trial that's made to seem fair (even with his hand on the scale), that'd make another impeachment (because there's like six different avenues of attack that'd be justified) much harder to justify to the public.

    But if McConnell just fucks it right up, like having the Senate vote immediately, or use some arcane rule to stop it before it hits the Senate floor, then Democrats NEED to keep going back to that well, to show that McConnell is the one breaking everything, and that the Democrats are going to keep fighting.

    Because that's the thing. As we've seen, the public (and especially the base) massively approve of Democrats fighting a good fight. Can't capitulate to these fuckers, and all that does is depress (in multiple ways) the base.

    Man in the Mists
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Fawst wrote: »
    Lindsey Graham is concerned about Trump’s latest bullshit re: Turkey. That may as well be pulling the fire alarm.

    Lindsay Graham has been concerned with a lot of stuff Trump does and says. Inevitibly he'll either stop voicing those concerns, or do a 180 and support them because Trump blustered on through.

    Graham has been backing everything full force since Kavanaugh, so this is actually a bit of a shift. It'll probably go away, but it's not completely meaningless.

Sign In or Register to comment.