Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seanD View Post
    Jim, your own article says it was dismissed last month, not yesterday.

    Pelosi has the impeachment in limbo, remember? Perhaps you could make the argument Bolton didn't know whether he could still testify before the House because of this. I'm actually unclear of this myself.
    My mistake, wrong Monday, same point though. It was dismissed December 30th, a week ago, long after the House impeachment was finalized. The House can still supoena him though, and who knows, they just might do that.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seanD View Post
      Jim, your own article says it was dismissed last month, not yesterday.
      And also, it was dismissed because Democrats withdrew the subpoena and not because Kupperman didn't have a case, which is what Jimmy is implying.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        And also, it was dismissed because Democrats withdrew the subpoena and not because Kupperman didn't have a case, which is what Jimmy is implying.
        Apparently, at least according to his excuse for the delay, he was waiting to see how the judge would rule (which kind of doesn't make sense -- if he has something he's willing and anxious to spill now, why wait for that decision to volunteer to do it then?). But the judge dismissed it shortly after the House retracted the subpoena. So the question is, why didn't Bolton appear before the House when that happened? Why doesn't he do it now, since the impeachment is still in limbo and there's no guarantee the senate will even hear his evidence?

        Comment


        • McConnell said he has the minimum of 51 votes to begin the trial in the format that he has long envisioned: opening arguments for both the House impeachment managers and for Trump’s defense team, as well as ample time for questioning by senators, said the two people on the condition of anonymity to discuss a private meeting.

          The vote would be held after the Senate receives the articles from the House, and a decision would be made on whether to call witnesses once the first phase of the trial is over, under the majority leader’s plan.

          Senate Republican leaders did a final vote check Tuesday morning to make sure they have the votes for McConnell’s plan, according to a GOP senator familiar with the discussions.

          That echoes the format of President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial that was held 21 years ago, and McConnell has been able to convince his members that Trump should be treated in the same fashion.

          https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...rticl-n2559110

          I'm not sure what there is for Democrats to complain about: let both sides present their best opening argument with the option of hearing additional witnesses and evidence if enough people are on the fence. That all sounds perfectly fair to me.

          Of course Democrats know their opening argument is going to be a dud, but that's their problem.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            And also, it was dismissed because Democrats withdrew the subpoena and not because Kupperman didn't have a case, which is what Jimmy is implying.
            And now that the Kupperman suit has been declared moot, Judge Jacksons ruling in the McGahn case becomes law and like McGahn, Bolton would now have to comply with a supoena.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              And now that the Kupperman suit has been declared moot, Judge Jacksons ruling in the McGahn case becomes law and like McGahn, Bolton would now have to comply with a supoena.
              Do you think they will subpoena Bolton, and if not why?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seanD View Post
                Do you think they will subpoena Bolton, and if not why?
                Well, the complicit with the cover-up Republican Senate won't supoena him to testify at trial unless they are forced to by public sentiment which is why Lindsey Graham is advocating to begin the trial now regardless of the House not delivering the Articles. But if they don't, I think that the House probably will. If for some reason he is not supoenaed at all, his perspective will come out in his up-coming book. The more evidence that comes out, if it is inculpatory, the House just might impeach again due to the obstruction.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Well, the complicit with the cover-up Republican Senate won't supoena him to testify at trial unless they are forced to by public sentiment which is why Lindsey Graham is advocating to begin the trial now regardless of the House not delivering the Articles. But if they don't, I think that the House probably will. If for some reason he is not supoenaed at all, his perspective will come out in his up-coming book. The more evidence that comes out, if it is inculpatory, the House just might impeach again due to the obstruction.
                  I don't understand why the House wouldn't make the attempt since Bolton has now publicly stated he'd testify and since that's what Pelosi apparently held up the process for. IOW, if they didn't subpoena him as a witness that would be very weird and make no sense to me, and would indicate Pelosi was holding up the process for some other reason.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seanD View Post
                    I don't understand why the House wouldn't make the attempt since Bolton has now publicly stated he'd testify and since that's what Pelosi apparently held up the process for. IOW, if they didn't subpoena him as a witness that would be very weird and make no sense to me, and would indicate Pelosi was holding up the process for some other reason.
                    Well if the Senate is pressured into allowing witness testimony then there would be no need of the House to subpoena since Bolton said that he would be willing to comply with a Senate subpoena. Who knows, perhaps she's giving the Senate time to define the trial format. Believe me though, Pelosi knows what she's doing so I certainly would not second guess her. Like you, I simply don't know.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                      Well if the Senate is pressured into allowing witness testimony...
                      They won't be. The rules are in place, and McConnell has the votes: opening arguments from the prosecution and defense; if enough Senators are on the fence then a vote will be called to allow the presentation of new witnesses and evidence; otherwise, it's game over for the Democrats.

                      Note that these are the exact same rules that were used for Clinton's impeachment trial.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        They won't be. The rules are in place, and McConnell has the votes: opening arguments from the prosecution and defense; if enough Senators are on the fence then a vote will be called to allow the presentation of new witnesses and evidence; otherwise, it's game over for the Democrats.

                        Note that these are the exact same rules that were used for Clinton's impeachment trial.
                        Lindsey Graham et al argued vehemently in the Clinton trial that witnesses must testify otherwise it would be a sham trial. Not only were they obviously correct, but they are pathetic hypocrites. The question remains, what are they and you afraid of? I think we all, including you, know the answer to that.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Well if the Senate is pressured into allowing witness testimony then there would be no need of the House to subpoena since Bolton said that he would be willing to comply with a Senate subpoena. Who knows, perhaps she's giving the Senate time to define the trial format. Believe me though, Pelosi knows what she's doing so I certainly would not second guess her. Like you, I simply don't know.
                          Well, like MM said, they've already defined the trial. My prediction is Bolton won't testify, or if he does it will turn out to be a nothingburger, and Trump will be acquitted. However, you'll likely get your wish because, at that point, we'll be full scale war with Iran and Trump won't get reelected. God help us from there.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                            Lindsey Graham et al argued vehemently in the Clinton trial that witnesses must testify otherwise it would be a sham trial. Not only were they obviously correct, but they are pathetic hypocrites. The question remains, what are they and you afraid of? I think we all, including you, know the answer to that.
                            And Democrats like Chucky Schumer argued vehemently in the Clinton trial against introducing new witnesses, so both sides have flip-flopped. That's politics for you.

                            So now it's on the Democrats to present a compelling enough opening argument to convince a majority of Senators that new witnesses and testimony should be presented. Do you think they're up to it?
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              And Democrats like Chucky Schumer argued vehemently in the Clinton trial against introducing new witnesses, so both sides have flip-flopped. That's politics for you.
                              Sure, that's politics. Which perspective is correct though, that witnesses are necessary or witnesses should be avoided?


                              So now it's on the Democrats to present a compelling enough opening argument to convince a majority of Senators that new witnesses and testimony should be presented. Do you think they're up to it?
                              There's a solid case to be made. To bad most I try to discuss it with aren't up to the task .

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                And Democrats like Chucky Schumer argued vehemently in the Clinton trial against introducing new witnesses, so both sides have flip-flopped. That's politics for you.

                                So now it's on the Democrats to present a compelling enough opening argument to convince a majority of Senators that new witnesses and testimony should be presented. Do you think they're up to it?
                                The witnesses that Schumer argued against in the Clinton trial were not new witnesses, they had already testified in the House Impeachment, their testimony was already known, the witnesses requested to be heard in this the Trump trial have never been heard, their testimony, as well as documentary evidence was blocked, by the President. So, when are you going to tell us why you are afraid of the obstructed witnesses from being heard?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                137 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                356 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                363 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X