|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 28, 2020 15:46:30 GMT -5
Personally I just want this mess over with..
After watching these proceedings I have one thing to say to the House (In my Greta voice) - HOW DARE YOU!
The push will be on for the Dems to drag this out as long as they can. That means calling witnesses and an endless request for "documents". I did find out that IF the vote for witnesses is a tie 50-50 then it does not pass. The VP does not break ties. So the Dems need 4 Republicans to join them. I understand Romney and Collins are both open to that. Will they get two more? I hope not...
Pull up the tent stakes and shut this circus down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2020 16:10:53 GMT -5
Personally I just want this mess over with.. After watching these proceedings I have one thing to say to the House (In my Greta voice) - HOW DARE YOU!The push will be on for the Dems to drag this out as long as they can. That means calling witnesses and an endless request for "documents". I did find out that IF the vote for witnesses is a tie 50-50 then it does not pass. The VP does not break ties. So the Dems need 4 Republicans to join them. I understand Romney and Collins are both open to that. Will they get two more? I hope not... Pull up the tent stakes and shut this circus down. Yeah, I forget who said it, but somebody said if dems have their way, this will go on until April or May. I agree, pull the plug, it never should have gone on to begin with. But remember what one of the Presidents defense team said, we'll just move on from this to whatever investigation they come up next.
|
|
|
Post by mgderf on Jan 28, 2020 18:18:48 GMT -5
Much as I hate to say it, things don't look as good as I'd hoped, for a quick acquittal. Fox News just reported that Mitch McConnell is saying he does NOT have the votes to block calling witnesses.
So the circus continues... Who wants to bet there'll be ANOTHER "bombshell" email, or document of some sort, that magically shows up JUST before they vote on whether or not to call witnesses? It won't matter that it's another lie, or pure speculation.
If you remember Nancy Pelosi from just last week, "It's not about facts. It's about the allegations".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2020 18:55:40 GMT -5
Much as I hate to say it, things don't look as good as I'd hoped, for a quick acquittal. Fox News just reported that Mitch McConnell is saying he does NOT have the votes to block calling witnesses. So the circus continues... Who wants to bet there'll be ANOTHER "bombshell" email, or document of some sort, that magically shows up JUST before they vote on whether or not to call witnesses? It won't matter that it's another lie, or pure speculation. If you remember Nancy Pelosi from just last week, "It's not about facts. It's about the allegations". They've shown time after time after time that they're experts at manufactured, last minute allegations, and basically, they throw so much crap at you, you couldn't possibly ever address it all. The smear campaign they put Brett Kavanaugh through ought to have been criminal.
|
|
|
Post by greyhair on Jan 28, 2020 19:14:42 GMT -5
I agree that much of this whole thing is absurd, but putting all other things aside, I guess someone will have to explain to me why having witnesses is a bad thing, as long as both sides are allowed to call relevant witnesses, and they can be questioned by both sides? The Judge could rule on who is relevant?
Also, if they vote to allow witnesses, do they have to negotiate as to who is called etc?
On another note, did I read somewhere that in a 50-50 vote that the VP cant cast the tie-breaking vote, but the Chief Justice does?
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 28, 2020 19:42:29 GMT -5
My biggest problem with witnesses in general is that word relevant is always thrown in... relevant to who? I'd say if a witness gets 51 votes they are relevant no matter what other options say. Let the count decide who is relevant.
|
|
|
Post by greyhair on Jan 28, 2020 20:01:50 GMT -5
Yeah relevant is a tough one. I mean what would stop the Dems from calling, say, Dick Cheney about Iraq, or the Repubs calling Hillary Clinton about Benghazi?
In a perfect world that is where a judge could rule that testimony is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 28, 2020 20:05:39 GMT -5
Call me a cynic but I do believe this late witness thing has been the Dem ploy all along. They could have subpoenaed these witnesses and documents in the House and fast tracked Trumps claim of Exective Privilege to the SCOTUS. But they pulled the subpoenas with the excuse that Trump was so bad they had to remove him right away..then sat on the articles for over a month. IMO - the Dems want this drawn out all year..they started their 2020 campaign three years ago. It’s not just Trump they are after but retaining the house and taking control of the Senate. All is fair in love, war and politics.
Of course Bolton says he would not testify to the house unless he was forced to by the court. Truth was he wasn’t finished writing his book. A house testimony two months ago would have taken the wind out of his book sales. Now his book is finished, presales started within hours of the NYT article. The press he is getting now will only increase sales.
I agree with Dershowitz.. even of Trump was holding out for a Biden investigation it is still not impeachable. Biden being a candidate for office does not make him immune to investigations .
No one in their right mind would say that Hunter was actually earning that $83,000 a month.
I also believe that a lot of similar deals are going on all over the world with various politicians. Very, very seldom is anyone investigated as I believe it happens on both sides of the aisle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2020 20:21:08 GMT -5
Call me a cynic but I do believe this late witness thing has been the Dem ploy all along. They could have subpoenaed these witnesses and documents in the House and fast tracked Trumps claim of Exective Privilege to the SCOTUS. But they pulled the subpoenas with the excuse that Trump was so bad they had to remove him right away..then sat on the articles for over a month. IMO - the Dems want this drawn out all year..they started their 2020 campaign three years ago. It’s not just Trump they are after but retaining the house and taking control of the Senate. All is fair in love, war and politics. Of course Bolton says he would not testify to the house unless he was forced to by the court. Truth was he wasn’t finished writing his book. A house testimony two months ago would have taken the wind out of his book sales. Now his book is finished, presales started within hours of the NYT article. The press he is getting now will only increase sales. I agree with Dershowitz.. even of Trump was holding out for a Biden investigation it is still not impeachable. Biden being a candidate for office does not make him immune to investigations . No one in their right mind would say that Hunter was actually earning that $83,000 a month. I also believe that a lot of similar deals are going on all over the world with various politicians. Very, very seldom is anyone investigated as I believe it happens on both sides of the aisle. And so, this circus continues, fueled by the sleazy politics of the dems, and the Republic suffers for it.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 28, 2020 20:26:02 GMT -5
With zero chance of him being removed from office this whole ordeal has been about politics and 2020. By both sides.
As to who determines relevance I'll stand by what I said earlier...let 51 votes be the litmus test. I guess maybe I have some naive confidence in our (imperfect) system.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 28, 2020 21:21:32 GMT -5
With zero chance of him being removed from office this whole ordeal has been about politics and 2020. By both sides. As to who determines relevance I'll stand by what I said earlier...let 51 votes be the litmus test. I guess maybe I have some naive confidence in our (imperfect) system. Lindsey Graham just said that he guarantees 51 votes to subpoena Joe and Hunter Biden and a DNC staffer that went to Ukraine (for something or another. I did not catch what for). The way Schumer talked he just want his witnesses. This is going to get downright ugly...I mean uglier than it is now. ,
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 28, 2020 21:33:11 GMT -5
If they get past the 51 to allow any the only one I'd bet on, at this time, getting to 51 is Bolton. Hunter is a close second but I don't believe Joe gets there.
We will see...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2020 21:54:33 GMT -5
With zero chance of him being removed from office this whole ordeal has been about politics and 2020. By both sides. As to who determines relevance I'll stand by what I said earlier...let 51 votes be the litmus test. I guess maybe I have some naive confidence in our (imperfect) system. Lindsey Graham just said that he guarantees 51 votes to subpoena Joe and Hunter Biden and a DNC staffer that went to Ukraine (for something or another. I did not catch what for). The way Schumer talked he just want his witnesses. This is going to get downright ugly...I mean uglier than it is now. , And the dems will drag this out until spring or summer. What a carnival sideshow.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 29, 2020 8:37:05 GMT -5
If they get past the 51 to allow any the only one I'd bet on, at this time, getting to 51 is Bolton. Hunter is a close second but I don't believe Joe gets there. We will see... Yep.. the Republicans are not near as dependable in getting the votes out as the Dems are..
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jan 29, 2020 12:50:48 GMT -5
I know that we are a constitutional republic, just funny how fast someone is to point that out. Can't poke a little fun. Although I should probably not do it in the politics forum. Nah, you're so fine. I just think it's so quick to get pointed out because so many seem to not understand that, and it's so important to understand. Exactly
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 29, 2020 15:21:40 GMT -5
Watching this Q and A .
Another farce. The managers and the President’s lawyers field questions from Senators ON THEIR OWN SIDE.
No doubt both sides got together and the senators asked”What do you want us to ask?”
Leading questions are not allowed in a court of law but is Modus Operendi here.
The judge is doing a poor job too. There was supposed to be no rebuttal of the opposing side’s answers but Roberts never said boo when Schiff did it for several minutes and then went over his allotted time answering the question he was supposed to answer.
Big joke...
|
|
|
Post by mgderf on Jan 29, 2020 17:00:46 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2020 19:00:39 GMT -5
The whole thing is a joke. We need a convention of states and a strong militia to protect them.
|
|
|
Post by mgderf on Jan 29, 2020 21:09:59 GMT -5
The whole thing is a joke. We need a convention of states and a strong militia to protect them. The more I watch of this question phase, the more I wonder if we'll need to after November. The Democrats are stepping all over their own message at every turn. A while ago Adam Schiff actually said some to the affect that, "We cannot accept Donald Trumps denial of guilt any more than we should accept the word of ANY accused." So, if you've been accused, you're guilty! These morons are undermining their own arguments, while simultaneously making fools of themselves. Mr. Schiff also announced a few minutes ago that if they needed a court ruling on something that they would not need to go to Scotus. He said they had a perfectly capable judge right there, in justice Roberts, and that he could rule immediately on any issues that might arise. President Trumps counsel promptly rebuked Mr. Schiffs assertion stating that what Mr. Schiff proposed is not a legal procedure, and that Mr. Schiff should know this, since he is a former prosecutor. This is better than soap operas!
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Jan 29, 2020 21:55:56 GMT -5
Watching this Q and A . Another farce. The managers and the President’s lawyers field questions from Senators ON THEIR OWN SIDE. No doubt both sides got together and the senators asked”What do you want us to ask?” Leading questions are not allowed in a court of law but is Modus Operendi here. The judge is doing a poor job too. There was supposed to be no rebuttal of the opposing side’s answers but Roberts never said boo when Schiff did it for several minutes and then went over his allotted time answering the question he was supposed to answer. Big joke... This is not a court of law. This is an impeachment trial that is more political than a court trial. Unfortunately, the constitution does not go into detail on how to run an impeachment trial in the US Senate. So the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court and the US Senate have to figure this all out for themselves. Remember this is only the 3 rd impeachment trail we have had in the last 240 years. The question that I have is why not have witnessed in this trial. Don't we want to know the truth?
|
|