The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Not everyone on the right has been pro-free-trade.

 

 

Yes, but they are generally outliers. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

25 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Yes, but they are generally outliers. 

 

And they've been right, over the long term.

 

 

[3rdnlng]

27 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

And they've been right, over the long term.

 

 

True Free Trade is a good thing. When unfair trade is confused with Free Trade the outliers cry and moan about the inequities of Free Trade while they should actually be crying and moaning about unfair trade. Trump has proclaimed that he is for Free Trade with anyone who wants it. If other countries don't want True Free Trade, that's ok by him. He'll give them Fair Trade, with him being the arbitrator. 

[B-Man]

 

Noemie Emery: History will forget this impeachment. 

 

“Even a huge, screaming headline in the biggest type possible cannot lend suspense or importance to an event that began three years ago and whose outcome was never in doubt.

 

The war to impeach President Trump has been waged at full throttle since 2016. And so, an inflection point in late 2019 is not all that striking, especially since the next stage in the drama will be to return the whole thing to the status quo ante.

 

The impeachment proceedings against Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton had been genuine digressions from the traditional politics that had marked their first terms in office, and to which the country would later return. In contrast, our politics has been dialed up to 13 on a 1-to-10 scale since Trump was elected.”

 

 

 

.

[Doc]

If this goes to a trial, can McConnell call any witness he/the Repubs want, while ignoring who the Dems want?  I think I know the answer but want to be sure.

[keepthefaith]

12 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

Noemie Emery: History will forget this impeachment. 

 

“Even a huge, screaming headline in the biggest type possible cannot lend suspense or importance to an event that began three years ago and whose outcome was never in doubt.

 

The war to impeach President Trump has been waged at full throttle since 2016. And so, an inflection point in late 2019 is not all that striking, especially since the next stage in the drama will be to return the whole thing to the status quo ante.

 

The impeachment proceedings against Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton had been genuine digressions from the traditional politics that had marked their first terms in office, and to which the country would later return. In contrast, our politics has been dialed up to 13 on a 1-to-10 scale since Trump was elected.”

 

 

 

.

 

Impeachment is the new "racism" and the new "unconstitutional".  The left has cheapened these labels which used to carry some weight and now we can add impeachment to that list. 

[Doc]

13 hours ago, Doc said:

If this goes to a trial, can McConnell call any witness he/the Repubs want, while ignoring who the Dems want?  I think I know the answer but want to be sure.

 

Anyone have an answer to this?  Meaning can McConnell call the Bidens but not have to call Bolton, Pompeo, etc.?

[row_33]

The Dems wrangled their hearings to include only witnesses and questions they wanted

 

[Chef Jim]

10 minutes ago, row_33 said:

The Dems wrangled their hearings to include only witnesses and questions they wanted

 

This appears to be the case. If so how is this a fair trial?  

[SoCal Deek]

13 hours ago, Doc said:

If this goes to a trial, can McConnell call any witness he/the Repubs want, while ignoring who the Dems want?  I think I know the answer but want to be sure.

It won’t matter. You have to remember that there’s simply no case and no crime here. Oh the Dems will get an offhand sound bite or two but in the end it’ll be a huge waste of time intended only to fuel the news cycle and use taxpayer dollars to bloody their political opponent. (Sounds an awful like Nancy wants McConnell to ‘do us a favor’ and announce an investigation into her political rival....doesn’t it?)

[Buffalo_Gal]

23 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Anyone have an answer to this?  Meaning can McConnell call the Bidens but not have to call Bolton, Pompeo, etc.?

I am not an attorney or Constitutional scholar, and do not play one on the internet, buuuuut... there was a Supreme Court decision back in '93  (the Nixon wasn't President Nixon, it was a judge) that basically said the Senate controls the trial process and no one else can tell them what to do or how to do it.  From that, I'd infer that the Senate can do whatever they like... just as the House did whatever they liked to hold an impeachment vote. 

 

[Nanker]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I am not an attorney or Constitutional scholar, and do not play one on the internet, buuuuut... there was a Supreme Court decision back in '93  (the Nixon wasn't President Nixon, it was a judge) that basically said the Senate controls the trial process and no one else can tell them what to do or how to do it.  From that, I'd infer that the Senate can do whatever they like... just as the House did whatever they liked to hold an impeachment vote. 

 

Frankly, I'm hoping for something like this...

 

[DC Tom]

39 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I am not an attorney or Constitutional scholar, and do not play one on the internet, buuuuut... there was a Supreme Court decision back in '93  (the Nixon wasn't President Nixon, it was a judge) that basically said the Senate controls the trial process and no one else can tell them what to do or how to do it.  From that, I'd infer that the Senate can do whatever they like... just as the House did whatever they liked to hold an impeachment vote. 

 

 

Same reason the Senate doesn't have to hold a vote on a Supreme Court nominee.  And the same reason the House can make impeachment rules up as they go along.  

 

What the branches do is determined by the Constitution.  How they do it is up to them and them alone.  Pelosi could decide to impeach Trump by weighing him against a duck, and it would be Constitutional.

[Nanker]

19 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Same reason the Senate doesn't have to hold a vote on a Supreme Court nominee.  And the same reason the House can make impeachment rules up as they go along.  

 

What the branches do is determined by the Constitution.  How they do it is up to them and them alone.  Pelosi could decide to impeach Trump by weighing him against a duck, and it would be Constitutional.

Seems Trump's fate is sealed.

[row_33]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

This appears to be the case. If so how is this a fair trial?  

you didn’t just say the word “fair” did you?

 

 

 

[row_33]

That is so frickin cute and sweet

 

For one case the ripped-off owner, when I asked him what he wanted to do to the woman that stole millions, suggested something with a soldering iron, off the record of course....  

 

 

Edited December 27, 2019 by row_33

[B-Man]

 

 

CONRAD BLACK:   Democrats Must Live with Consequences of Their Foolish Impeachment Farce.

 

 

 

.

[Doc]

OK, that's what I thought.  I really don't see Nancy sending the articles to the House.  The Repubs will call the Bidens, Chalupa, Ciaramella, anyone and everyone and that will be worse than claiming the process is unfair.

[row_33]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

OK, that's what I thought.  I really don't see Nancy sending the articles to the House.  The Repubs will call the Bidens, Chalupa, Ciaramella, anyone and everyone and that will be worse than claiming the process is unfair.

the Senate you mean 

 

the founding fathers were so wise to appoint 2 from every state to this vital chamber 

 

this allowed great men (so far) from small states to steer the country, unlike the House  which is dominated by Cali and NY loonybirds 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Desperation. 
https://mobile.twitter.com/GrabienMedia/status/1210598233799569408