The impeachment goat and pony show

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

It doesn’t matter what happens now.  Six months ago, I had no intention of voting for Trump.  Today, I most definitely will, just because of what the dems are trying to do to him. Call it underdog syndrome if you will.  But myself, along with about 150 million additional voters WILL be going to the polls this year.

[laylalex 7,300]

1 hour ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

The only necessary rules about the Senate trial are in the Constitution. There's nowhere that says they can't do a motion to dismiss. This is what happens in a trial as well -- the Senators are the jury (the judges of guilt or innocence+managers of the trial). Outside the Constitution's rules, which are extremely few, the Senate makes all the other rules. Just like the House's impeachment sham was able to adopt the form it took under direction from Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff, etc., the Senate trial can be equally biased, equally one-sided, at the behest of McConnell.

 

The issue of subpoena, however, is something that would, if seriously pursued+contested, need to be decided separately in a court. Generally, what actually plays out, is one or the other winds up giving in, without a ruling. Either people come on their own volition, or Congress doesn't bother trying to litigate. It's a balancing act, because Congress stands a chance of the Judiciary saying their subpoena means jack, making it entirely useless, or they could emphatically affirm it, tearing into the President's authority to be the President, meaning his cabinet, if not himself, could just be endlessly subpoena'd and the executive come to a grinding halt. Both sides, fearing losing power, pick their battles, not pursuing it all the way to the end (addressing the issue itself before a court). Naturally, the process that pits one representative branch against the other is done to facilitate conflict, and resolution.

 

How it would happen, I suspect, is McConnell would call up the impeachment articles to deliberate in the Senate, call a motion to dismiss. Democrats would object. John Roberts would initially favor the Democrats objection. McConnell would call a vote on it. The Senate would vote, and if a majority favor McConnell's motion, it would overrule Roberts. 

 

Whether or not he does that, who knows. We still don't even know if this matter will ever come before the Senate, because it's a joke to begin with. 😂

Err, just a minor point. In order to do a motion to dismiss, the trial has to start, no? (And you even say this yourself.) And the other procedural points you make about objections would also need a trial to begin in order for any of this to happen, even for Roberts to be overruled, he has to have a trial to preside over. 

 

But going back to my original point, it is not for the Senate to say what is or is not unlawful about the House's articles. My understanding is that the Senate has a lot of leeway in conducting the trial, and can determine its rules. But ultimately it can't say "this act by another legislative body is unlawful" -- it's down to a court to decide that. And yes, I know it's a meme  but why is it that there are SO many of these memes that contain flat out incorrect nonsense? You may understand it, I may understand it, but there are a hell of a lot of stupid people out there who believe nonsense like "the Senate can throw out the impeachment as unlawful" because they read it on Facebook in a meme.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, laylalex said:

Err, just a minor point. In order to do a motion to dismiss, the trial has to start, no? (And you even say this yourself.) And the other procedural points you make about objections would also need a trial to begin in order for any of this to happen, even for Roberts to be overruled, he has to have a trial to preside over. 

 

But going back to my original point, it is not for the Senate to say what is or is not unlawful about the House's articles. My understanding is that the Senate has a lot of leeway in conducting the trial, and can determine its rules. But ultimately it can't say "this act by another legislative body is unlawful" -- it's down to a court to decide that. And yes, I know it's a meme  but why is it that there are SO many of these memes that contain flat out incorrect nonsense? You may understand it, I may understand it, but there are a hell of a lot of stupid people out there who believe nonsense like "the Senate can throw out the impeachment as unlawful" because they read it on Facebook in a meme.

So I ask ye...  WHY hasn’t the trial started?  Isn’t Trump a very real danger to the US?

 

[laylalex 7,300]

Just now, ALFKAD said:

So I ask ye...  WHY hasn’t the trial started?  Isn’t Trump a very real danger to the US?

 

Let me check....

 

Just checked in the mirror. A bit too young, hair wrong color, no plastic surgery (rumored).... no, I'm still not Pelosi. Let's see how I look tomorrow and maybe I'll have an answer then. 🤷‍♀️

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Let me check....

 

Just checked in the mirror. A bit too young, hair wrong color, no plastic surgery (rumored).... no, I'm still not Pelosi. Let's see how I look tomorrow and maybe I'll have an answer then. 🤷‍♀️

You are in serious need of a new hero.

[laylalex 7,300]

18 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

You are in serious need of a new hero.

I never said she was my hero, silly.  

 

Alex (who just got home so I am signing off for a while) came in the house, looked at my screen while he gave me a kiss hello and asked me why I was looking up "Nancy Pelosi plastic surgery" and before I could explain, he told me that while he does think she has outstanding baps for a grandmother, he's happy with mine the way they are. 😧

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

41 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Let me check....

 

Just checked in the mirror. A bit too young, hair wrong color, no plastic surgery (rumored).... no, I'm still not Pelosi. Let's see how I look tomorrow and maybe I'll have an answer then. 🤷‍♀️

My question sailed right over your head.  Was hoping for a better reply, but i get it.  I really do.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

3 hours ago, laylalex said:

Err, just a minor point. In order to do a motion to dismiss, the trial has to start, no? (And you even say this yourself.) And the other procedural points you make about objections would also need a trial to begin in order for any of this to happen, even for Roberts to be overruled, he has to have a trial to preside over. 

 

But going back to my original point, it is not for the Senate to say what is or is not unlawful about the House's articles. My understanding is that the Senate has a lot of leeway in conducting the trial, and can determine its rules. But ultimately it can't say "this act by another legislative body is unlawful" -- it's down to a court to decide that. And yes, I know it's a meme  but why is it that there are SO many of these memes that contain flat out incorrect nonsense? You may understand it, I may understand it, but there are a hell of a lot of stupid people out there who believe nonsense like "the Senate can throw out the impeachment as unlawful" because they read it on Facebook in a meme.

Does a trial have to start.. who knows. Logic dictates McConnell waits, but if Pelosi is going to play around, they just might start procedures to dismiss early, and have a valid Constitutional reason to do so. A prosecution can't just infinitely buy itself time for the hell of it. If it's a legal process to take seriously, Trump is owed his day in court. If it's a political process, the Constitution still states the process moves forward, and the Senate has every right to make it as politically contrived as the House did.

 

Either way, my scenario about what happens presumes Pelosi sends the impeachment forward, but we don't know if she will. If she had any faith in her articles, she would, but she doesn't, because she knows it's a joke. 

 

About "unlawful".. you're harping on this word too much. It's meaningless. The Senators can say it's unlawful, they can say it's terrorism, they can say it's rape, they can say whatever they like, they are not the judiciary that decides lawfulness or anything outside their own power, but they can use their own subjective interpretation to decide to call a vote to dismiss, they can use that subjective interpretation to vote dismiss. Basically, it's them voicing their logic behind using their Senate powers to dismiss. There's no reason whatsoever to conflate this to a judicial interpretation. They can't magically grant themselves this power, and that's not what they're asserting they can do. They're effectively protesting, and describing how they would utilize their Senate authority. Easy to understand.

 

I will say, I've thought that the GOP quickly running through this would be a dumb move that has high potential to backfire, but I also never expected that the impeachment articles would be held up either, that's new ground. It makes so much more sense to toy around with their comical articles for months and just smear the ####### in their faces right before the election. Force all these "witnesses" back, add more witnesses, drag it through the mud. That's definitely what the swing GOP people want (Collins, Murkowski, etc.), because clearly they believe their constituents are dumb and need to see a process that seems like this is taken seriously, and they might be right. What I think is, if it ever gets passed to the Senate, because the Dems no longer would control the narrative, it increases the likelihood they conjure up some other nonsense in the House, so their media buddies try to minimize the Senate and prioritize the House. It's really just a PR war, and nothing at all about crimes, the only serious thing is how far people are going to put on a show.

 

About memes.. they're memes. It's humor, and viral humor. It's not about truth, so it should be taken at most half-seriously. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Quote

 

On Thursday’s “CNN Newsroom,” Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) stated that he would “support” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) if she refuses to send over the articles of impeachment unless the Senate will allow witnesses at the trial.

Host Jim Sciutto asked, “I wonder, without witnesses…should Speaker Pelosi refuse to send over the articles of impeachment at all?”

Doggett said, “I would certainly support her in doing that. The House has the sole responsibility under the Constitution for impeachment. To send over the articles when the majority leader, Mr. McConnell, has declared that he will breach his oath, that he will not do impartial justice in accordance with the Constitution, but plans to act on cue and in accordance only with the defendant in this case would be no trial at all.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/01/02/dem-rep-doggett-id-support-pelosi-never-sending-articles-if-senate-wont-allow-witnesses/

 

tfw you conduct a sham political impeachment process and want to switch from political process to legal process for the Senate, and the leader isn't having any of it

 

[TBoneTX 45,971]

49 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

It's really just a PR war

When did we declare war on Puerto Rico, or it on us?!

[Dashinka 24,745]

On 12/31/2019 at 2:36 PM, laylalex said:

I was quoting the picture (meme?) on the other page. It shows this:

 

It says "Wait until the Senate throws out the impeachment as unlawful," right at the end.

 

I completely agree with the rest of your analysis btw.  

Well, that part of the meme was wrong.  However, I do expect massive protests from the Left when the Senate does not remove Trump.

[Dashinka 24,745]

9 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

It doesn’t matter what happens now.  Six months ago, I had no intention of voting for Trump.  Today, I most definitely will, just because of what the dems are trying to do to him. Call it underdog syndrome if you will.  But myself, along with about 150 million additional voters WILL be going to the polls this year.

I agree completely, and I also have another factor.  My House district is represented by one of those Freshmen Democrats who I will definitely vote against since she voted for this sham impeachment, and will definitely campaign against her.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I agree completely, and I also have another factor.  My House district is represented by one of those Freshmen Democrats who I will definitely vote against since she voted for this sham impeachment, and will definitely campaign against her.

Yep, same here.  Murkowski in #1 on my family’s list of people that need to be voted out of office.

[TBoneTX 45,971]

41 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Murkowski in #1 on my family’s list of people that need to be voted out

Do you have enough family in Alaska to enable this?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

14 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Do you have enough family in Alaska to enable this?

Despite being a swamp creature, she's solidly positioned herself as a moderate/independent resistant to the party brass.