Trump Isn�t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

[Sam]

No, you really didn't. You added your own special charm.

Feel free, any time, to actually show how what I said is an exaggeration of what McConnell and Graham said. It'd be a good exercise!

--Sam

[rogue06]

Fair and impartial means just that. A trial that acquits a rapist because the defense was able to call character witnesses and the prosecution was denied the ability to call key eye witnesses, on account that the judge is an old golf friend of the defendant, is neither fair nor impartial.

Critical, likewise, means just that: something of key importance. Mulvaney, Bolton, Duffey, et al. are critical key witnesses because they're the people closest to the President's direct orders and state of mind. Whether they help the prosecution's case or the defense's depends mostly on Trump's guilt or innocence.

A bit of a slip for you to assume that they're helpful to the prosecution but, honestly, that's where everyone here is in their heads and hearts, anyway.

--Sam

If they are so critical then why didn't the Democrats in the House ask the courts for assistance, and actually abandon a subpoena when Kupperman asked the courts for direction? We now know that the excuse they offered was utter unadulterated B.S. so why do you think that they really weren't all that interested in their testimony?

[Cow Poke]

Feel free, any time, to actually show how what I said is an exaggeration of what McConnell and Graham said. It'd be a good exercise!

--Sam

Sure, no problem at all.... Here's what you claimed, and I'll bold the "flavored" part...

...And that's because Graham and McConnell, most notably, were on TV flatly stating that they would not adhere to their oath of impartiality and...

That's what you claimed, and, while they actually did declare that they didn't intend to be impartial, they did NOT state that "they would not adhere to their oath" -- that was your "flavoring" of it.

So, here's what we have....

The Democrats were not the least bit impartial, but pretend they are
The Republicans don't plan on being impartial, and they're honest about it.


You're a lot slipperier than I remember.

[rogue06]

You're a lot slipperier than I remember.

I'd say he's gotten a great deal more ... schiffty

[Sam]

Sure, no problem at all.... Here's what you claimed, and I'll bold the "flavored" part...



That's what you claimed, and, while they actually did declare that they didn't intend to be impartial, they did NOT state that "they would not adhere to their oath" -- that was your "flavoring" of it.

So, here's what we have....

The Democrats were not the least bit impartial, but pretend they are
The Republicans don't plan on being impartial, and they're honest about it.


You're a lot slipperier than I remember.

"I'm not an impartial juror," he said flatly. "This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision."

Graham:

That's both McConnell and Graham flatly stating that they will not adhere to the oath above, which requires them to be impartial jurors in the process.

Whether you think that every Democratic and Republican senator is incapable of rendering impartial justice is your deal. That McConnell and Graham have both stated they do not intend to do so is not an exaggeration but a matter of fact.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

I'm sorry but how, exactly, does this differ from the traditional method of investigation and presentation to a grand jury?

Ah, so now you're changing from "analagous to a grand jury" to "investigating and presentation to...."

(When you can't admit you were wrong, pretend like you said something different)

HPSCI conducted an investigation and presented its findings of fact to the Judiciary Committee -- you could think of HPSCI as LEOs and Judiciary as DAs, here. Judiciary then presented its findings to the full House, which would constitute the grand jury. The House/GJ voted out a "true bill" for impeachment.

There you have it. The House owns the impeachment component - regardless of what committee they use to accomplish that - they ARE the impeachment body.

What there strikes you as very dissimilar from a normal grand jury experience?

Are you purposely being obtuse, Sam? The Grand Jury does not ORIGINATE a prosecution -- a prosecutor presents an actual case with actual criminal charges, and the Grand Jury decides whether it moves forward or not. I think you realized that, rather than admitting you were wrong, you chose to revise and extend your remarks in the hopes nobody would notice?

Y'all are humorous with the "orange man bad" stuff but not in the way you think --

I'm being purposely facetious in that to humor the TrumpHaters.

it's just continuously used as a way to outright ignore the actual wrongdoing that folks are pointing out and pretend that they're not talking about real facts and real details that you'd have to grapple with.

--Sam

So, now you're a mind reader, are ya? No, Sam, it's just to poke TrumpHaters* like you, and I have NEVER denied Trump is a horribly flawed individual.



*being facetious, Sam -- just mocking the lower intellect goofuses who label anybody who doesn't absolutely hate Trump as a "Trumpster".

[Cow Poke]

"I'm not an impartial juror," he said flatly. "This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision."

Graham:

That's both McConnell and Graham flatly stating that they will not adhere to the oath above, which requires them to be impartial jurors in the process.

Whether you think that every Democratic and Republican senator is incapable of rendering impartial justice is your deal. That McConnell and Graham have both stated they do not intend to do so is not an exaggeration but a matter of fact.

--Sam

No, Sam -- you claimed you quoted them VERBATIM --- you did not. You gave your own -- call it a 'paraphrase' if you will -- version of what they said, but it was NOT VERBATIM.



(however, at this point, I'm just going to admit that you're all knowed up and this isn't going to change, so you can have the last word on this)

[Sam]

Ah, so now you're changing from "analagous to a grand jury" to "investigating and presentation to...."

(When you can't admit you were wrong, pretend like you said something different)



There you have it. The House owns the impeachment component - regardless of what committee they use to accomplish that - they ARE the impeachment body.



Are you purposely being obtuse, Sam? The Grand Jury does not ORIGINATE a prosecution -- a prosecutor presents an actual case with actual criminal charges, and the Grand Jury decides whether it moves forward or not. I think you realized that, rather than admitting you were wrong, you chose to revise and extend your remarks in the hopes nobody would notice?



I'm being purposely facetious in that to humor the TrumpHaters.



So, now you're a mind reader, are ya? No, Sam, it's just to poke TrumpHaters* like you, and I have NEVER denied Trump is a horribly flawed individual.



*being facetious, Sam -- just mocking the lower intellect goofuses who label anybody who doesn't absolutely hate Trump as a "Trumpster".

The "glaring hole" you claimed in the analogy was that, unlike a presentation before a grand jury, the House was here going to someone else with no fact-finding and was, instead, operating on an "orange man bad, find us some charges!" method.

This is wrong, both on the basic factual merits and in understanding of the entire process. The full House is the "grand jury" and it was presented two reports (HPSCI & Judiciary) containing the investigative findings of fact. Moreover, the House didn't begin the impeachment inquiry on a fishing quest for information they could someday use to impeach Trump but was responding to a IC whistleblower complaint that the ICIG deemed both valid and urgent.

So you're spinning in the wind here trying to deny the obvious analogy to lawful investigative and court proceedings so that you may, somehow, get to a place where it's the Democrats and not the Republicans and Trump, who are acting improperly.

--Sam

[Sam]

No, Sam -- you claimed you quoted them VERBATIM --- you did not. You gave your own -- call it a 'paraphrase' if you will -- version of what they said, but it was NOT VERBATIM.



(however, at this point, I'm just going to admit that you're all knowed up and this isn't going to change, so you can have the last word on this)

I said "pretty much verbatim", which is true, and as a response to your claim that I had exaggerated what McConnell and Graham said, which I plainly did not.

You can't make your case that the statement was exaggerated and you can't seem to bring yourself to acknowledge that it wasn't.

What I said is that McConnell and Graham flatly stated they will violate their oath to act as impartial jurors. That is true, accurate, and pretty much verbatim, as the quotes show.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

The "glaring hole" you claimed in the analogy was that, unlike a presentation before a grand jury, the House was here going to someone else with no fact-finding and was, instead, operating on an "orange man bad, find us some charges!" method.

The way that it's NOT like a grand jury, Sam, is that a grand jury does not do the origination of a case, the investigation and determine the actual charges.

But you're going to believe what you want to believe, and I really don't care to argue this with you --- you're, as I said, all knowed up on this.

[Sam]

The way that it's NOT like a grand jury, Sam, is that a grand jury does not do the origination of a case, the investigation and determine the actual charges.

But you're going to believe what you want to believe, and I really don't care to argue this with you --- you're, as I said, all knowed up on this.

Which, I will say again, is analogous to what's happening here: the full House -- all of its members -- are the "grand jury". The full House did not "do the origination of a case": the HPSCI investigated an urgent complaint, found impeachable behavior, and referred its findings to the Judiciary Committee. The JC, in turn, presented the full House with its findings and recommendation that articles of impeachment be leveled against Trump.

The one way that it's not analogous is purely a function of the Constitution: that the House of Representatives, and it alone, has impeachment power. Any investigation leading to the impeachment of any president must originate in the House.

But that's not a distinction of any difference for the purposes of these discussions and no one can articulate (or has bothered to even try) why such a distinction has merit.

--Sam

[Sam]

If they are so critical then why didn't the Democrats in the House ask the courts for assistance, and actually abandon a subpoena when Kupperman asked the courts for direction? We now know that the excuse they offered was utter unadulterated B.S. so why do you think that they really weren't all that interested in their testimony?

This has been answered, per usual, several times in the past and the repetition of it never once attempts to incorporate the new (or old, after the first time) information: the House argued that the Kupperman court case was duplicative of the McGahn case and that since the McGahn ruling was imminent it should control.

The judge in the McGahn case (Jackson, if I recall) was clearly leaning toward the House at the time so it's no surprise that House counsel didn't want even the low chance of having contradictory rulings.

The House has been pursuing its subpoena of McGahn for months and everyone who isn't terribly ignorant but uses the argument that the House didn't "ask the courts" to resolve an issue that would take eight months to years working its way through the courts is actively engaging in a dishonest argument.

It is terribly unfortunate how this has become yet another venue for PRATTs ... and not always from the folks you'd think would be susceptible to 'em.

--Sam

[JimL]

"I'm not an impartial juror," he said flatly. "This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision."

Graham:

That's both McConnell and Graham flatly stating that they will not adhere to the oath above, which requires them to be impartial jurors in the process.

Whether you think that every Democratic and Republican senator is incapable of rendering impartial justice is your deal. That McConnell and Graham have both stated they do not intend to do so is not an exaggeration but a matter of fact.

--Sam

CP, can be quite slippery, not to mention hypocritical at times.

[Cow Poke]

Which, I will say again...

Merry Christmas, Sam.

[Teallaura]

The Senate isn't the defense either, but they are sure acting like it. Relevant witnesses should have been heard, but were blocked by the "defendent" from being heard. Yes, I know, the courts. But because the charge, "abuse of power" has to do with soliciting foreign interference in the upcoming election, Congress can not wait for the courts and Trumps stalling tactics.

Relevant witnesses should have been called in the inquiry.

The House created a partisan inquiry and didn't bother to prove its case. The Senate isn't obligated to finish the half you know what job that the House started.

Yes, they did, and as Sam has informed you, they still are, but the trial can not wait that long for reasons stipulated above, not to mention the fact that he is also trying to run out the clock on being indicted for crimes committed outside of the Presidency. Remember, he can't be indicted for crimes while President.

The Democrats flailing around like crazies doesn't prove anything other than what a total sham their impeachment is.

You knew full well that Trump would not be removed and kept saying it was the principle rather than the outcome. Well, you got what you wanted from your traitorous heroes so quit complaining that the obvious is happening.

The coup failed. Shy of Trump deciding not to run or a great depression redux Trump will be reelected thanks in very large part to the House Democrats. I'm not so sure that they are on your side.