Republicans Pound The Table And Yell
Republicans are getting increasingly more desperate to distract everyone's attention from the continuing revelations of President Donald Trump's corruption and abuse of power by the impeachment inquiry. In fact, they've reached the "pound the table" stage, as evidenced by yesterday's rather juvenile stunt which shut down a planned House committee hearing for five hours. For those unfamiliar with the old legal adage, here are two versions of it, the first from Alan Dershowitz: "If the facts are on your side, pound the facts into the table. If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table." Earlier, Carl Sandberg went at it from a more defensive angle, but his end result is the same: "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like Hell." This is precisely where the Republicans now are, since the both the facts and the law are (to put it politely) not on their side. So they're deploying their last-ditch mode, pounding the table and yelling as loudly as possible.
What's been rather amazing to watch is how the GOP has attempted to fight the growing impeachment momentum with arguments that -- even if they had been successful -- are all very short-term and limited in nature. Perhaps this is because they're taking their cues from Donald Trump, who certainly knows how to manipulate individual news cycles, but has absolutely no clue when it comes to long-term legal strategies.
The first argument both Trump and his minions made was that the whistleblower had some sort of political grudge and had made up a bunch of lies. There was an intense, white-hot fury over the whistleblower himself (or herself), which was doomed to become irrelevant almost instantly (as, indeed, it now has). If the whistleblower had reported something that fell into the "he said/she said" category, then it would have been their word against Trump's, assumably for something that happened while only the two of them were in the room. This wasn't even remotely true -- the whistleblower reported things that could be checked and verified with first-person witnesses and a documentary trail. In fact, Trump himself proved the whistleblower correct more than anything else that has subsequently been revealed, by releasing the semi-transcript of his call to the Ukrainian leader. Almost everything the whistleblower reported was shown to be true, by Trump's own words. To date, the whistleblower hasn't been proven wrong about anything of merit in his or her complaint, in fact. Which means that the identity of the whistleblower is now such a non-issue that Democrats may not even call on them to testify -- since there is no longer any need to do so. The whistleblower has no exclusive knowledge that hasn't already been proven by others' testimony or by that phone call. When a bank's being robbed in front of a whole bunch of witnesses, it really doesn't matter which one of them calls 911, in other words.
Next, the president and his cronies began arguing that the House needed to hold a formal vote on launching the impeachment inquiry. This is nonsense, because there is nothing in the Constitution that demands such a vote. Nancy Pelosi ignored the protest and went ahead and launched the inquiry. It is now underway. It is an undeniable fact. To Republicans who complain that she is somehow ignoring precedent and stomping all over tradition, there is one easy response: "Merrick Garland." Democrats didn't start this game of reinterpreting their own chamber's rules as they like, in fact Republicans have been doing so in rather egregious fashion for a very long time now. So they have absolutely no leg to stand on now to demand such fealty to past congressional traditions.
We've now moved to a different phase of Republican whining, one that is equally as short-sighted and doomed to irrelevancy. Republicans are now screaming about the "fairness" of the process and how they are being shut out and things are happening "in secret." There is another easy answer to House Republicans' shirt-rending and hair-pulling, though: "Benghazi." In fact, it's worth repeating: "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi." Here is none other than Trey Gowdy -- whom Trump recently tried to hire as his personal lawyer after Rudy Giuliani self-immolated on television one time too many -- in his own final report on his House committee's Benghazi investigation:
The committee's preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned. Interviews are a more efficient and effective means of discovery. Interviews allow witnesses to be questioned in depth by a highly prepared member or staff person. In a hearing, every member of a committee is recognized -- usually for five minutes -- a procedure which precludes in-depth focused questioning. Interviews also allow the committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives.
So if secrecy was "more efficient and effective" back then, why would the same Republicans who previously defended such moves have any problem with it now? Could it be because now the target is Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton? In fact, earlier this year (before the impeachment inquiry was announced and the House was still investigating the fallout from the Mueller Report) Republicans were arguing the exact opposite -- that open hearings were somehow unfair, because they were nothing more than "a media circus" and "Democrats getting in their soundbites" rather than a serious investigation. They can't have it both ways, obviously. But that doesn't stop them from trying, of course.
What will be truly amusing is when the short-term nature of their complaint is reversed upon them, though. This will take place in a few weeks, because Democrats have already said that while the initial phase of the investigation is being conducted behind closed doors -- to stop the witnesses from "getting their stories straight" -- eventually this phase will end and they will release all the transcripts and then call back the key witnesses for public testimony. This will be precisely the point when Republicans shut up about "secrecy" and "transparency" and begin arguing the exact opposite once again -- that the hearings are nothing short of a "media circus."
What's also laughable in their complaints is that Republicans have in no way been shut out of the process. Three House committees are investigating, and these committees have dozens of Republican members. Each of them is given time to question the witnesses, just like in any House committee hearing. You wouldn't know this fact, however, if you just listened to their complaints.
Yesterday, Republicans pounded the table as hard as they could in a bit of political theater designed to make it look like they're doing something. But this strategy was absolutely demolished by conservative former judge and legal analyst Andrew Napolitano, on (of all places) Fox And Friends. Here is the exchange (as reported by Salon), which took place between Napolitano and hosts Brian Kilmeade and Ainsley Earhardt:
"Let me tell you what I did, Kilmeade, I read the House rules," said Napolitano. "And as frustrating as it may be to have these hearings going on behind closed doors, the hearings for which Congressman Schiff is presiding, they are consistent with the rules."
"They can make up any rules they want," scoffed Kilmeade.
"They can't change the rules," said Napolitano. "They follow the rules. When were the rules written last? In January of 2015. And who signed them? John Boehner. And who enacted them? A Republican majority."
"What do the rules say?" said Earhardt.
"The rules say this level of inquiry, this initial level of inquiry can be done in secret," said Napolitano. "What happened in the Nixon impeachment? My former boss. I was his page in the House of Representatives. Peter Rodino, instead of holding the hearings in secret, interviewed the witnesses in secret. Congressman Henry Hyde in the Clinton impeachment, witnesses interviewed in secret and presented in public. Congressman Schiff, with a different set of rules, chooses to do initial set of interviews in secret."
"Secret doesn't work in this world," Napolitano added. "Eventually there will be a public presentation of this. At which point lawyers for the president can cross-examine these people and challenge them. This is like presenting a case to a grand jury, which is never done in public. So, I get it. The Republicans are frustrated. And they wanted to make a point. And they made their point. But this is just not the most effective way to show respect for what your colleagues are doing."
In other words, the Republicans have been reduced to pounding the table and yelling like Hell. This is because they have been spectacularly unsuccessful at arguing either the facts or the law. The law comes directly from our ultimate legal document, since impeachment is right there in the text of the Constitution. The facts become more damning by the day, which have deflated all the GOP's attempts at explaining things away. First it was: "There was no quid pro quo." Then -- whoops! -- the quid pro quo is right there for everyone to see. The hapless Republicans tried again: "It was never about Hunter Biden, it was about fighting corruption!" Except that's pretty laughable, because while Donald Trump is many things, a righteous corruption-fighter he is not. He even cut the budget for fighting corruption in places like Ukraine, showing what he really thinks of such efforts. And not only Burisma, but Biden's name keeps getting mentioned over and over again. Next up was: "The quid pro quo wasn't so bad, since it only involved a White House visit." Except -- Whoops! -- the military aid was also being used as leverage. This was countered with: "The Ukrainians didn't even know the military aid was being held up." Except -- Whoops! -- of course they did. Fighting off Russia is a life-or-death issue for them, so it's kind of far-fetched to think they'd somehow not notice the aid hadn't arrived on time. Every time Republicans argue the facts, they wind up with egg on their face when the real facts come out. Which is why they're largely abandoning such efforts in favor of making very short-term process arguments.
Each of these arguments has a very limited shelf-life, which only proves how desperate Republicans are getting. The thing about arguing the process is that the process continues to roll along -- meaning what you're complaining about today won't even be an issue next week. But it's all Republicans have got left. Personally, I don't think yesterday's table-pounding will be the last desperate attempt to change the subject by Republicans. As it becomes more and more impossible to argue the facts and the law, it's really all they've got left. Also, Trump loves to see such shenanigans on his television screen, and the Republicans are now playing to an audience of one. If there was ever a cheerleader for pounding the table and yelling like Hell, it's unquestionably Donald Trump.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Yep.
What continually amazes me - and I should be past this by now - is how brazen and shameless these repubs are - how easily they lie. They just stand in front of cameras and citizens and say manifestly dishonest and often ludicrously stupid things. They say them with straight faces and apparent conviction. And a month, a week, a day, a minute later they will say the opposite with straight faces and apparent conviction.
Not only are they utterly unconcerned about their gargantuan hypocrisy on so many matters, they are equally unconcerned that they can easily be shown to be hypocrites almost instantly. You (CW) note Trey Gowdy's comments about closed hearings - "but so what?" says the Republican. "That was then, this is now. In this minute closed hearings disadvantage me/us so they are bad. Tomorrow they may advantage me/us - then they'll be good."
It is comic-book villainy except it isn't funny - these dishonest gasbag traitors hold important positions that affect our country and the world. They have, through their total abdications of duty, enabled the deaths of Ukrainians and Kurds. And they will open their fat gobs and utter excuses, justifications and sheer lies about those facts.
Odious, loathsome excuses for statesmen and women.
When Rudy spontaneously combusts it's Gowdy Duty Time!
Methinks the Repugs will try as much as possible to move in something of a herd over the coming months. This will protect the bulk of them from getting nailed by a Trump vengeance tweet. He can't trash em all. I think.
Director Mueller implied in his report that Congress should investigate President Trump.
It has become clear that Congress should have opened an official investigation back then and explained precisely how they would go about the investigation and the taking of depositions and provide assurances that an official impeachment inquiry with public hearings would follow in a fair and transparent manner.
Why, after three impeachment episodes, have there not been rules of the road set out for this by Congress?
CW
Exactly! And very well said, sir!
FUN FACT: The table pounding stunt was premeditated and given the stamp of approval by Donald Trump himself prior to the GOP obstruction of justice and multiple instances of commissions of a felony by those not authorized to be there and those carrying their phones into the SCIF. There were reportedly 12 of the asshats whining about "not being in the room" who were actually in the room.
It's just so typical of the GOP to invent/peddle lies to their minions; however, I cannot fathom how the so-called "Trump base" can feel any kind of loyalty to a group of such spineless whiners like Trump and company who prattle on incessantly like little babies and who blatantly continue to spoon-feed them with layer upon layer of obvious propaganda and outright fabrication... Trump and the GOP who repeatedly and continually keep moving the goalposts of near every issue from "I didn't" to "so what if I did" and then to "get over it."
The GOP has pulled this goalpost moving BS so often that they appear to believe their base is a bunch of mindless morons incapable of catching on, but I'm getting phone calls from people I haven't heard from in a long time telling me otherwise... so there's that. :)
MtnCaddy,
How's about using GOP or Republicans or the longer congressional republicans instead of your juvenile term?
asshats? Why not just sully the actual name for them?
Paula
1
Well, you nailed that one.
I am continually also amazed to hear the minions falling for the utterly nonsensical right-wingnut lying BS wherein they prattle on and on about how Schiff is leaking and "not allowing" the GOP talking gasbags to do likewise... as if any one of those fabricating hot bags of wind pissers wouldn't leak any favorable information whatsoever that would clear Trump of any wrongdoing.
It doesn't take but a few tiny insignificant slow-firing cantankerous brain cells to realize that all those lying goalpost moving dipshits would be oozing in unison like a punctured dirigible if any such exculpating evidence existed... but it doesn't... so they can't.
EM
7
asshats? Why not just sully the actual name for them?
That is my actual name for some of them, while others obviously have other names... which I'll toss out as I feel the need arises. :)
TS
2
When Rudy spontaneously combusts it's Gowdy Duty Time!
Oh, this is stellar... you've given one of Putin's puppets the actual name of a puppet. Good form! :)
EM
4
Why, after three impeachment episodes, have there not been rules of the road set out for this by Congress?
They are simply required to follow the Constitution and the House rules, which they are, in fact, already doing. Those rules were enacted by a Republican majority when John Boehner was Speaker of the House and subscribed in 2015. Lindsey Graham knows this, and that's what gives the bullshit he is spewing a special kind of stench.
Yes, I know about the Constitution and House rules and the rule change by the Republicans.
Obviously, something more in the way of a standard roadmap that everyone must follow. Because, you know, you have a lot of impeachments and threats of impeachment in your country.
Because, what you have now is a mess.
Kick-10
To be honest, you found more in Gowdy Duty than I actually intended. I was just going for a cheap pun...Mr. Peabody style.
I think Mafia Don is pretty good fit for the Pres. (better than his suits or ties) as he lies, connives and threatens his way into what looks like a winter of discontent.
EM
12
Okay, then. Allow me a do-over... as follows.
DO-OVER
Why, after three impeachment episodes, have there not been rules of the road set out for this by Congress?
Well, "this Congress" would likely be more than happy to formulate "House Rules of Impeachment" if not for the fact that they're currently quite busy at the moment and any rules forthcoming from their House chamber would summarily then be buried by Moscow Mitch DcTurtle a.k.a. Moscow's Bitch.
Oh, wait... you said "this by Congress" rather than "this Congress."
Nevermind! :)
Sigh.
TS
13
To be honest, you found more in Gowdy Duty than I actually intended. I was just going for a cheap pun...Mr. Peabody style.
Oh... so an unintended genius from "way back"... I see.
I think Mafia Don is pretty good fit for the Pres. (better than his suits or ties) as he lies, connives and threatens his way into what looks like a winter of discontent.
Yes, sir. History will not be kind to "Mafia Don." Who could have possibly known that Trump would turn out to be a turncoat in the form of a Benedict Donald? ;)
We should be cautious about condemning people for complaining about procedure. We're going to be complaining about procedure soon, when the Senate gets articles of impeachment against Trump and proceeds to hold a trial of Biden instead, disallowing any evidence that might actually be relevant to the charges it was sent.
dsws
17
We should be cautious about condemning people for complaining about procedure.
Not when they're premeditating the obstruction of justice with the subject POTUS of said impeachment inquiry and breaking multiple federal laws in the process of said complaining.
We're going to be complaining about procedure soon, when the Senate gets articles of impeachment against Trump and proceeds to hold a trial of Biden instead, disallowing any evidence that might actually be relevant to the charges it was sent.
That's funny... and while I certainly would not put that past Moscow Mitch, the United States Constitution requires the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preside over a presidential impeachment trial. So you think Chief Justice Roberts will try Biden when he is handed Articles of Impeachment pertaining to Trump?
I'm kidding. :)
Yea?
And if Democrats had pulled this stunt, ya'all would be crowing how awesome the Democrats are for fighting back..
Don't bother to deny it, everyone here knows it is factually accurate..
This is EXACTLY why it's IMPOSSIBLE to take anything ya'all say seriously..
Because the FACTS show that it is completely and utterly 1000% based on Party loyalty...
DSWS,
We should be cautious about condemning people for complaining about procedure. We're going to be complaining about procedure soon, when the Senate gets articles of impeachment against Trump and proceeds to hold a trial of Biden instead, disallowing any evidence that might actually be relevant to the charges it was sent.
EXACTLY...
If this had been a Democrat stunt, every one here would be SWOONING on how awesome it was, how brave it was, how utterly GLORIOUS it was...
It's NOTHING but pure unadulterated -D vs -R partisan moose poop....
That is the **ONLY** factor at work here..
That is why it's impossible to take it seriously.. It's become a caricature of partisan politicking...
Nothing more..
while I certainly would not put that past Moscow Mitch, the United States Constitution requires the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preside over a presidential impeachment trial.
It's still in the Senate, under the rules of the Senate. Roberts will have about as much control over it as Pence does over normal Senate business now.
So you think Chief Justice Roberts will try Biden when he is handed Articles of Impeachment pertaining to Trump?
Justice Roberts will have no choice..
It's the Senate's trial.. The Chief Justice is merely a figure head and has no real power to steer the trial...
According to the Constitution (and I KNOW ya'all are adherents to the Constitution.... :eyeroll:) the Senate conducts the trial as it sees fit up to and including dismissing the charges outright..
Further, since it was Democrats who entered into evidence Ukraine, Burisma, Joe and Hunter Biden, Senate Republicans have every legal right to pursue those subjects as they see fit..
So, even IF Chief Justice Roberts had the power (which he doesn't) he would rule that the GOP's efforts to make the Senate Trial a trial of Joe and Hunter Biden is in keeping with the evidence..
"Simple logic.."
-Admiral James T Kirk
DSWS,
It's still in the Senate, under the rules of the Senate. Roberts will have about as much control over it as Pence does over normal Senate business now.
You are agreeing with me WAY too often, eh?? :D
I bet that bothers ya more than a little, eh? :D
heh
"Stuart.. Please don't agree with me. It just makes me doubt myself.."
-Michael J Fox, SPIN CITY
:D
Durham's investigation into possible FBI misconduct is now criminal probe, sources say
U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing probe into potential FBI and Justice Department misconduct in the run-up to the 2016 election through the spring of 2017 has transitioned into a full-fledged criminal investigation, two sources familiar with the investigation told Fox News on Thursday night.
One source added that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's upcoming report on alleged FBI surveillance abuses against the Trump campaign will shed light on why Durham's probe has become a criminal inquiry. Horowitz announced on Thursday his report would be available to the public soon, with "few" redactions.
The investigation's new status means Durham can subpoena witnesses, file charges, and impanel fact-finding grand juries.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-durham-investigation-fbi-misconduct-criminal-probe
And the reason's for Democrat's desperate faux impeachment coup becomes clear..
Who could have POSSIBLY saw this coming??
Oh... wait.. :D
Howz that "Speed Impeachment" werkin' out for ya'all?? :D
It's about to be overtaken by Democrat criminality and malfeasance, criminal charges and Obama minions doing the perp walk... :D
Oh FRABJOUS DAY!! :D
Additionally, in its original FISA application and subsequent renewals, the FBI told the FISA court it "did not believe" Steele was the direct source for a Yahoo News article implicating Page in Russian collusion. Instead, the FBI suggested to the secret court, the September 2016 article by Michael Isikoff was independent corroboration of the dossier. But, London court records showed that contrary to the FBI's assessments, Steele briefed Yahoo News and other reporters in the fall of 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS.
It has further emerged that Steele had communications with a State Department contact -- which were relayed to the FBI -- in which Steele claimed the Russians were running a "technical/human operation run out of Moscow targeting the election" and that "payments to those recruited are made out of the Russian Consulate in Miami."
And the thlot pickens.. :D
Steele blatantly lied to the FBI and the FBI blatantly lied to the FISA Court......
Someone's going to jail.. And it won't be anyone from Trump's side of the equation.. :D
Someone's going to jail.. And it won't be anyone from Trump's side of the equation.. :D
Trump's people are there already, no? Heh.
Trump's people are there already, no? Heh.
Anyone in jail was no longer "Trump's People" long before they went to jail.. :D
They were bitter has-beens who lashed out to "get even" with President Trump..
Much of what people like that say should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt..
Funny though.. Democrats had the EXACT same opinion of those people before they turned on President Trump.. :D
"That Joe Blow is a scum sucking liar and is a total waste of skin!! NO ONE can believe ANYTHING he says!!! What??? He hates Trump now!?? JOE BLOW IS A GIFT FROM HEAVEN!!! SO FULL OF VIRTUE AND INTEGRITY.. WE CAN BELIEVE EVERYTHING HE SAYS!!!"
-Weigantians & Democrats
:D
As I said.. It's hard to take people like that who change their tune at the drop of a dime depending on the -D or -R in play.... It's hard to take them seriously on anything..
Present company excepted of course.. :D
One only has to look at people here singing the praises of Mitt Romney to know that this is completely factually accurate.. :D
Anyone in jail was no longer "Trump's People" long before they went to jail.. :D
Heh.
Bill Barr's Russia Investigation is not a remedy for his boss, it is simply a vengeance weapon, like the V-1 and V-2 of the you-know-who.
Barr is Trump's von Braun who sees the elegant legal engineering effort as career building. In the words of song writer Tom Lehrer:
"Don't say that he's hypocritical...
Say rather that he's apolitical...
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?....
That's not my department" say Wernher von Braun"
On the other hand, a cornered Trump unrealistically views the effort as a means to forcing the Democrats to call off the impeachment campaign. This is the ghost of mob lawyer Roy Cohn noodling about in Trump's head. Sue the bastards...delay and bleed them dry. I think this is wishful thinking on Trump's part - the effort is a side show that is only going to add to the pain and suffering of the civilian population caught in the middle.
Unlike von Braun, I see no Disney or NASA equivalent in Barr's future.
Bill Barr's Russia Investigation is not a remedy for his boss, it is simply a vengeance weapon, like the V-1 and V-2 of the you-know-who.
That's funny coming from someone who supports the President Trump witch-hunt as vengeance weapon for having the utter audacity, the un-mitigated GALL to kick the shit out of Hillary Clinton..
I'm just sayin..
Unlike von Braun, I see no Disney or NASA equivalent in Barr's future.
Of course you don't..
But, on the other hand, you have been wrong every OTHER time you made Trump Is Toast predictions..
I think it's cute that you think you have even a shred of credibility.. :D
Now, this is where you make a snarky I'M IGNORING MICHALE comment.. :D
Dems Beware -- the RNC Is Crushing It
Whoever thought this fight would start in the general election campaign had it all wrong. This terrifying realization is now causing allies of former Vice President Joe Biden to mull the creation of a super PAC since he is not only struggling to raise adequate sums but has been forced to fend off attacks by Trump months before the first votes in the primary contest will even be cast.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/25/dems_beware_--_the_rnc_is_crushing_it_141582.html
Didn't Joe Biden promise that he would never have nor use a Super PAC????
[8] Kick: t doesn't take but a few tiny insignificant slow-firing cantankerous brain cells to realize that all those lying goalpost moving dipshits would be oozing in unison like a punctured dirigible if any such exculpating evidence existed... but it doesn't... so they can't.
Perfect!
"It doesn't...
Sigh.
Michale[34],
I am positive, 100% sure that Chris will be writing about this soon and often.
So, I'm keeping my powder dry until then, you will understand.
Don't sigh, Paula - demand a time-sensitive edit function!
Meanwhile Tulsi Gabbard continues to prove HRC "right" by going, again, on mega-traitor Hannity's show to disapprove of impeachment, diss Dems, etc. She has apparently announced she won't run to retain her Congressional seat and continues to threaten a 3rd Party run.
[38] EM: It would be nice!
Indeed.
I am positive, 100% sure that Chris will be writing about this soon and often.
I don't think so..
This is TOTALLY DECIMATING to the Democrats and CW has been.... er... uh... shall we say... being a cup is half full kind of commentator of late..
If you look back over the commentaries, not a single one of them has been anything but rosy, "we got this", "no problems here" pep talks..
No dire warnings to Democrats, no ya'all are heading towards a cliff commentary, no Holy Shit How Could Democrats Screw Up So Badly type commentaries..
Reading CW alone, one would get the picture that Democrats have this easy and that there is absolutely NOTHING to worry about...
To be fair, I have been working other projects and there might have been a DOOMSDAY FOR DEMOCRATS commentary or two I may have missed..
But the GOP/RNC killing it on fund raising is totally and utterly devastating to Democrats and, because of that, I don't think CW will touch it with anymore than an offhand mention in a "Nothing To Worry About" manner..
and continues to threaten a 3rd Party run.
Facts to support??
No??
Of course not..
:eyeroll:
Re [24]:
Please do agree with me, as much as you can in good conscience, specifically because it works much better at helping me alter my opinions than just repeating R talking points. If I have to carry on multiple sides of the dispute myself, it's harder to keep track of, and therefore harder to make good arguments.
Mike
19
And if Democrats had pulled this stunt, ya'all would be crowing how awesome the Democrats are for fighting back..
That's one hell of an incorrect and bullstank hypothetical since Democrats don't generally march in lockstep like Republicans and would never deign to go in front of rolling cameras and speak to Americans as if they were idiots by telling them they're being locked out of hearings that they're actually in attendance, prompting them to repeat their lies all over social media only to discover they were duped and played like a group of useful idiots.
Don't bother to deny it, everyone here knows it is factually accurate..
Those claiming repeatedly to know what everyone thinks need never wonder even for a scintilla of a second why they're generally not taken seriously.
This is EXACTLY why it's IMPOSSIBLE to take anything ya'all say seriously..
Your projection is both ever present as well as totally expected.
Because the FACTS show that it is completely and utterly 1000% based on Party loyalty...
Said the GOP Party lockstepper with the same few arguments that at this point resemble something akin to rotting horseflesh beaten firmly into the soggy ground. :)
Mike
20
EXACTLY...
Again, you've missed someone's entire very relevant point and actually just agreed wholeheartedly that Republicans would hijack Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate and hold of trial of Joe Biden in his stead. :)
It's NOTHING but pure unadulterated -D vs -R partisan moose poop....
I agree that your pulverized "-D vs -R" tired overused argument is "moose poop."
That is why it's impossible to take it seriously.. It's become a caricature of partisan politicking...
I also agree that your tired usage of the same lame oversaturated oversimplified overused argument has become a caricature. You should get over it. :)
DSWS,
Please do agree with me, as much as you can in good conscience, specifically because it works much better at helping me alter my opinions than just repeating R talking points. If I have to carry on multiple sides of the dispute myself, it's harder to keep track of, and therefore harder to make good arguments.
Thanks.... I think... :D
The Republicants have threatened forever to open inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation. The problem, of course, is that, so far, the "facts" of that case exist mainly in the heads of those directing it. And if there were a "there" there, we'd have heard about it.
Of course, maybe that's the plan: use the 2nd investigation to develop unsubstantiated innuendo that they can throw at the democrats. It certainly worked that way for Benghazi/e-mailgate. After the election, they can always say that it looked better in the heat of battle...
The Republicants have threatened forever to open inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation.
You DO realize that the inquiry was opened MONTHS ago right??
It's now gone from "inquiry" to "criminal case"...
The problem, of course, is that, so far, the "facts" of that case exist mainly in the heads of those directing it. And if there were a "there" there, we'd have heard about it.
Yea.. You said the same thing about the Russia Collusion delusion.. And you got it all wrong..
:D
The fact is, Democrats are running scared from Durham's criminal probe...
That's why they pushed this hail mary faux impeachment coup..
It's the dying gasp of the sore lusers...
You DO realize that the inquiry was opened MONTHS ago right?
Yep. So far, nothing.
It's now gone from "inquiry" to "criminal case"...
Based on what? Nothing we've heard about.
Democrats are running scared from Durham's criminal probe...
Proof? Didn't think so. If Durham has something, maybe now is a good time to put it on the table.
dsws
21
It's still in the Senate, under the rules of the Senate. Roberts will have about as much control over it as Pence does over normal Senate business now.
Does Mike Pence have the power to make a ruling on all evidentiary questions during a Senate trial of the President of the United States? Nope!
https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-806.pdf
DSWS,
Please do agree with me, as much as you can in good conscience, specifically because it works much better at helping me alter my opinions than just repeating R talking points.
So, yer saying that if I agree with you yer gonna alter your opinion so we don't agree??
Are you honestly going to give me that much power over you??
Shirley, I hope not.. :D
Irregardless...
Suffice it to say that you are dead on balls accurate when you state that Chief Justice Roberts has little to zero control over how Republicans prosecute the Impeachment Trial...
Even if he had any control, since it was Dumbocrats who introduced Ukraine, Burisma and Joe & Hunter Biden into evidence, the GOP pursuing that line of investigation is completely and legally proper..
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that THAT was the whole Trump/McConnell plan all along..
Give President Trump a boost by exonerating him AGAIN of all lame Dumbocrat accusations and tearing down the Democrat front runner and totally destroying his campaign in the process... :D
Once again, a WIN-WIN for President Trump and a LOSE-LOSE for Dumbocrats.. :D
It's UNCANNY how President Trump always seems to accomplish this, eh? :D
since it was Dumbocrats who introduced Ukraine, Burisma and Joe & Hunter Biden into evidence, the GOP pursuing that line of investigation is completely and legally proper..
It wasn't, but who's quibbling. Show us what you've got and stop being coy about it (or shut the f**k up).
It wasn't,
You yourself said that the transcript of the Trump/Zelensky "proved" President Trump was guilty...
According to YOU and Democrats, that transcript is the ENTIRE basis of this faux impeachment coup..
There's a lot of talk about Biden's son. That Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.
Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.
It was Democrats who entered into evidence Joe Biden and Hunter Biden..
Senate Republicans will simply be following the evidence that Democrats entered into the case..
GAME.... SET.... MATCH
:D
Grrrr....
It wasn't,
You yourself said that the transcript of the Trump/Zelensky "proved" President Trump was guilty...
According to YOU and Democrats, that transcript is the ENTIRE basis of this faux impeachment coup..
There's a lot of talk about Biden's son. That Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.
Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.
It was Democrats who entered into evidence Joe Biden and Hunter Biden..
Senate Republicans will simply be following the evidence that Democrats entered into the case..
GAME.... SET.... MATCH
:D
Mike
22
Justice Roberts will have no choice..
Justice Roberts will have no choice but to try Joe Biden at Trump's impeachment trial? You seem infinitely and utterly incapable of understanding the written word.
It's the Senate's trial.. The Chief Justice is merely a figure head and has no real power to steer the trial...
Well, if you're going to insist that the Chief Justice would be forced to try Joe Biden when the House sends the Senate the Articles of Impeachment of Donald Trump, then there's no helping your level of incomprehension and confusion regarding the United States Constitution.
According to the Constitution (and I KNOW ya'all are adherents to the Constitution.... :eyeroll:)
You should really take the time to allow your eyes to stop rolling around in your empty head and rather move side to side over all those other words of the Constitution not contained solely in the Second Amendment thereof, maybe then you'd understand why the Chief Justice of the United States would not preside over any trial of a former Vice President of the United States. Indeed, there's no need to impeach an official of the United States who's already left office.
Further, since it was Democrats who entered into evidence Ukraine, Burisma, Joe and Hunter Biden, Senate Republicans have every legal right to pursue those subjects as they see fit..
Not in a Senate trial of Joe Biden, they don't. The Constitution gives the Senate the right to try impeachments of sitting officials and not former sitting officials. There is no need whatsoever to impeach a former official as he has indeed already relinquished the office.
So, even IF Chief Justice Roberts had the power (which he doesn't) he would rule that the GOP's efforts to make the Senate Trial a trial of Joe and Hunter Biden is in keeping with the evidence..
Bless your little heart, Mike, but the Senate doesn't hold trials of private citizens; they hold impeachment trials.
"Simple logic.."
-Admiral James T Kirk
You never have and never will get an argument from me whenever you post your oft repeated factual statement that your logic is simple because -- quite simply -- your logic is infinitely simple. :)
Senate Republicans will simply be following the evidence
What evidence? We know that Hunter worked for Burisma, and that Joe (backed by a consortium of countries) lobbied for the prosecutor to be fired. So far, that's it. I don't detect a crime, yet.
Anybody ever wonder what Biden Jr., described by Wikipedia as "an American lawyer and lobbyist", actually does to "earn" an outrageous income from a Ukrainian natural gas producer??
Probably he minored in Geology and/or Well Drilling, right?
What evidence? We know that Hunter worked for Burisma, and that Joe (backed by a consortium of countries) lobbied for the prosecutor to be fired. So far, that's it. I don't detect a crime, yet.
Key word being "YET".... Since Senate GOP'ers will be crawling up Joe and Hunter Biden's ass with a fine tooth comb, the crime will be revealed..
It's how you Dumbocrats do things, right?? Make an accusation and then treat it as fact and investigate accordingly??
Won't be much fun when your "Front Runner" is the witch that is being hunted, eh?? :D
These are the times that make everything good and right in the world..
Dumbocrats hoisted on their own Picard!!! :D
Anybody ever wonder what Biden Jr., described by Wikipedia as "an American lawyer and lobbyist", actually does to "earn" an outrageous income from a Ukrainian natural gas producer??
Probably he minored in Geology and/or Well Drilling, right?
No, he majored in Name-Dropping.. :D
Won't be much fun when your "Front Runner" is the witch that is being hunted, eh?? :D
And what makes this so extra specially delicious is that it was DUMBOCRATS who made it all possible by entering Joe Biden and Hunter Biden into evidence!!! :D
Dumbocrats were too smart by half...
BBBBBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ever read a book by Henry Denker called OUTRAGE??
It illustrates this very point..
To whit, a old man shoots and kills his daughter's rapist and killer in cold blood, then calmly walks into a police station and confesses..
It is learned that the rapist/murder of his daughter was actually charged and HE confessed to the crime as well.. But a judge ruled the evidence AND the confession was inadmissible due to a faulty arrest, so the rapist murderer went free..
The defense attorney tried to put that judge on trial.. The attorney argued that, since the prosecutor had introduced that judge and his actions into evidence, it was a legitimate line of inquiry...
Turns out that when the old man confessed to his crime, he named the judge in his daughter's murderer's trial several times..
Since it was the prosecution who introduced the old man's confession that included the judge in the murderer's case, the judge in the current case had to allow the defense attorney to make the trial about that judge..
In this case, since it was Democrats who entered the transcript of President Trump's call with President Zelensky that included Joe and Hunter Biden, the Biden's are fair game for a line of inquiry..
Even if Chief Justice had the power to rule on the GOP's actions (which he doesn't) he would rule the line of inquiry proper because it was DEMOCRAT who introduced the Biden's into evidence.. :D
Granted, the book is fiction.. But the legal precedence is very real and very much a part of US jurisprudence... :D
Once again.. Dumbocrats are their own worst enemies..
They have allowed President Trump to maneuver where he will be completely and utterly exonerated by the Senate and Joe Biden's campaign will be totally and completely decimated.. :D
Biden will be forced to defend himself and his son at the Senate Trial..
It's uncanny how President Trump accomplishes these things!! :D
Mike
28
Anyone in jail was no longer "Trump's People" long before they went to jail.. :D
Then someone should inform Trump they're not his "people" since he's still got Rudy G and his mob morons trying to find a way to rewrite the Mueller Report in order to clear them all of any wrongdoing that is definitely contained in the Mueller Report despite any protestations to the contrary.
I would wager that Rudy Giuliani is going to be indicted for conspiracy to defraud the United States or at the very least various other assorted things like tax fraud and money laundering in connection with those recently arrested guys who funneled foreign money into a Super PAC of Trump's... illegal by any stretch of the imagination.
Trump is still singing Rudy's praises today... just like he was still singing the praises of Mikey Cohen right up until Trump threw him squarely under the bus and claimed to barely know him.
They were bitter has-beens who lashed out to "get even" with President Trump..
Someone should tell Trump that Manafort, Stone, and those others he is trying to alter history for are bitter "has-beens." Then maybe he'll stop working furiously with mob-connected figures to clear himself and the "has-beens" of any charges for which they're standing trial in the future or already sitting in prison at the present time.
Much of what people like that say should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt..
Someone should have told Rudy G that before he pursued the conspiracy theories coming from the lips of Manafort via Vlad Putin.
Funny though.. Democrats had the EXACT same opinion of those people before they turned on President Trump.. :D
Funny though, Manafort hasn't turned on Trump and is sitting in jail for crimes he confessed in connection with Ukraine.
"That Joe Blow is a scum sucking liar and is a total waste of skin!! NO ONE can believe ANYTHING he says!!! What??? He hates Trump now!?? JOE BLOW IS A GIFT FROM HEAVEN!!! SO FULL OF VIRTUE AND INTEGRITY.. WE CAN BELIEVE EVERYTHING HE SAYS!!!"
-Weigantians & Democrats
Frequently invented quotes are the tools of liars and fools. Trump has a "tell" keyword when he invents fake quotes, and that word is: "Sir." #pathetic
TS
31
A very good and fitting analogy.
On the other hand, a cornered Trump unrealistically views the effort as a means to forcing the Democrats to call off the impeachment campaign.
Not going to happen. This is the ghost of mob lawyer Roy Cohn noodling about in Trump's head. Sue the bastards...delay and bleed them dry.
I know, right!? And isn't it just the height of hypocrisy to keep whining incessantly like toddlers that Democrats need to vote to hurry up and authorize the impeachment inquiry while throwing up roadblock after roadblock to impede that process? It's as transparent as air what they're doing.
Unlike von Braun, I see no Disney or NASA equivalent in Barr's future.
Barr is a prime candidate to follow in the footsteps of one John Mitchell.
Chief Justice of the DC District Court just ruled the House is entitled to Mueller's Grand Jury material. The judge read the information and saw a coverup.
Tough break for Bill Barr and Trump since Barr had redacted parts of the Mueller Report that didn't need to be in order to hide evidence from Congress. Bad form and does not bode well for his future.
Balthasar
48
The Republicants have threatened forever to open inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation.
I know, right!? Who could forget the ridiculous Nunes Memo wherein the President of the United States unclassified classified information in order to try to derail the Mueller Investigation into his actions. If that had worked then we wouldn't be where we are now.
The problem, of course, is that, so far, the "facts" of that case exist mainly in the heads of those directing it.
Same as it ever was, absolutely correct.
And if there were a "there" there, we'd have heard about it.
Yep.
Of course, maybe that's the plan: use the 2nd investigation to develop unsubstantiated innuendo that they can throw at the democrats. It certainly worked that way for Benghazi/e-mailgate. After the election, they can always say that it looked better in the heat of battle...
The timing of this leak to The New York Times isn't suspect at all either, is it? ;)
Kick: The timing of this leak to The New York Times isn't suspect at all either, is it? ;)
As much as they criticize the Grand Old Lady, they sure do use it a lot...
It is a good thing that you admitted to having never been in law enforcement, because your knowledge of how our judicial system works is so sorely lacking that if anyone had believed you were a LEO, they wouldn’t anymore!
A few questions about the book that I assume you are claiming to have read (instead of just cut & pasting someone else’s review and synopsis):
What defense were they claiming, if the father CONFESSED to the killing? How does the judge play into that defense in a way that the court would allow it? The judge has immunity, so I am dying to hear how you get around that little snag! Also, you do realize that the dad killed a man who had not been convicted of any crimes, correct?
So all a killer has to do is mention someone’s name and claim that they caused the defendant to kill, and then that named person is put on trial? Due process be damned!
It is a good thing that you admitted to having never been in law enforcement
And, once again, you are spewing bullshit that you have no facts to support..
What defense were they claiming, if the father CONFESSED to the killing? How does the judge play into that defense in a way that the court would allow it? The judge has immunity, so I am dying to hear how you get around that little snag! Also, you do realize that the dad killed a man who had not been convicted of any crimes, correct?
Read the book if you are curious.. If you can read...
Moron...
Or, if you are too stoopid to read, you can watch the movie..
But the movie doesn't do the book justice..
Mike
49
The fact is, Democrats are running scared from Durham's criminal probe...
Nope. The investigation into the opening of the Russia investigation isn't about Democrats or Republicans, Mike. Intelligence community employees have the partisanship trained right out of them, and Durham was actually appointed by Eric Holder to investigate the alleged prisoner abuses during the Bush administration that occurred at CIA-run prisons. No one is afraid of Durham and have been willingly responding to his questions without need of subpoena. The elevation of Durham's investigation to a criminal inquiry will allow him to issue subpoenas and call a grand jury to decide whether or not to pursue cases against DOJ employees. No one is scared and likely won't avoid testifying unlike Trump and company who keep obstructing justice with their ignoring subpoenas.
That's why they pushed this hail mary faux impeachment coup..
It's a very real impeachment, Mike, for a very real abuse of power and violation of federal statutes. That's why Trump is responding by encouraging federal employees to obstruct justice and ignore subpoenas of Congress and why they're now attacking the credibility of career intelligence employees who were just doing their jobs in the investigation of Russia's interference in our election in order to install Trump as POTUS. There are intercepts, you know.
It's the dying gasp of the sore lusers...
You appear not to care about facts, Mike. You sound like Trump when he was spewing all that lying birther nonsense of his and whining incessantly that he's sent his investigators to Hawaii and lying to the useful idiots that they won't believe what the investigators have discovered about Obama. There's no "there" there, Mike. It's just like the birther nonsense he fabricated about Barack Obama, Mike; the facts aren't on Trump's side.
Your so-called "law enforcement bona fides" are taking a hit every time you post your ridiculous conclusions, Mike, and you have yourself to thank for it. :)
But, regardless of yer boorish semantical arguments and your lame pedantic spewage, the fact remains.
You Dumbocrats introduced Joe & Hunter Biden into evidence and therefore that line of inquiry is perfectly permissible in the Senate trial..
If Dumbocrats even get that far.. :D
Clinton takes another shot at Trump, as speculation runs rampant about possible 3rd White House run
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/as-clinton-takes-another-shot-at-trump-speculation-runs-rampant-about-a-possible-third-white-house-run
Democrats WOULD be THAT stoopid and moronic to nominate Hillary again..
BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Balthasar
53
It wasn't, but who's quibbling. Show us what you've got and stop being coy about it (or shut the f**k up).
Oh, no! Encourage him to prattle on and on as much as he wants while he himself proffers body blow after blow to his so-called "law enforcement bona fides." It's comical to watch him flailing in his attempts to prove his "legal expertise."
Remember, Balthasar, it wasn't all that long ago that he bitch slapped his "law enforcement bona fides" into near oblivion by explaining to us all how Manafort was completely exonerated when he was indeed found guilty or plead guilty to every... single... charge. And more coming for Manafort. :)
Balthasar
57
What evidence? We know that Hunter worked for Burisma, and that Joe (backed by a consortium of countries) lobbied for the prosecutor to be fired. So far, that's it. I don't detect a crime, yet.
Also, it shows a basic level of ignorance on Mike's part to insist that Justice Roberts will preside over a trial by the Senate of Joe Biden when he's a private citizen now and no longer holds an office for which the Senate need determine whether or not to remove him from... just to obviously state the obvious. :)
Just found this in an article about Trump’s treatment of protesters at his rallies in today’s WaPo.
Lawyers for a veteran who pushed a protester at a rally during 2016 said that he did so “in response to — and inspired by — Trump and/or Trump campaign’s urging to remove the protesters.” Others have pointed to Trump’s rhetoric as an inspiration for attempted or actual acts of violence. Cesar Sayoc, the man who mailed inert pipe bombs to Democratic politicians and members of the media last year, was a Trump supporter, and Trump’s rhetoric was similarly identified as one causal factor in his actions.
Funny, according to you, Trump could have been forced to answer for his actions in these cases since the DOJ’s position on a sitting president not being indicted would have no influence since it isn’t the government, but the defense, that is claiming the charges.
Balthasar
67
As much as they criticize the Grand Old Lady, they sure do use it a lot...
Yep!
It wasn't even all that long ago when Trump spent quite an impressive chunk of time prattling on and on about the "fake news" and criticizing The New York Times for all manner of things. Then in the same Q and A, Trump holds up an article from "you'll never guess what newspaper" and insists that it exculpates him.
Meanwhile, the rubes in their ever-present haze and stupor of cognitive dissonance don't quite understand that that's basically the equivalent of either Donald Trump insisting he's either full of shit up to his eyeballs or that he thinks his base is as ignorant as the day is long. :)
Russ
68
Well now... if that wasn't a textbook example of Mike supplying the knife and... well, you know the rest. ;)
And, once again, you are spewing bullshit that you have no facts to support..
There you go using that word “facts” again. The FACT I have is that you admitted to me that you had never worked as a LEO in any police department, but that you had supposedly served as an MP when in the military. You also claimed to have shot and killed a woman who came at you with a knife...which you’d think there would be some record of that event somewhere, but you’ve never bothered to provide any proof to support your claim.
Read the book if you are curious..
Figured you had just stolen someone’s review and hadn’t actually read the book.
YOU were the one offering the book as “proof” (?) as to why the Senate Impeachment trial of Trump could instead focus on Biden’s actions. (Do you not see how utterly stupid that statement sounds?!?). If you can’t answer simple questions to defend your ridiculous argument, don’t get mad at me!
Let’s try that again....
And, once again, you are spewing bullshit that you have no facts to support..
There you go using that word “facts” again. The FACT I have is that you admitted to me that you had never worked as a LEO in any police department, but that you had supposedly served as an MP when in the military. You also claimed to have shot and killed a woman who came at you with a knife...which you’d think there would be some record of that event somewhere, but you’ve never bothered to provide any proof to support your claim.
Read the book if you are curious..
Figured you had just stolen someone’s review and hadn’t actually read the book.
YOU were the one offering the book as “proof” (?) as to why the Senate Impeachment trial of Trump could instead focus on Biden’s actions. (Do you not see how utterly stupid that statement sounds?!?). If you can’t answer simple questions to defend your ridiculous argument, don’t get mad at me!
Mike
72
But, regardless of yer boorish semantical arguments and your lame pedantic spewage, the fact remains.
Your so-called law enforcement bona fides are again taking another hit at your own hand if you're seriously now going to whine about "semantical arguments" in reference to issues of law. What the hell do you think it is when Trump whines over and over that there was "no collusion, no collusion, no collusion" and now "no quid pro quo" over and over like an effing moron stuck on stupid? It's arguing legal semantics, and it's actually what goes on in courts of law day in and day out, a fact of which you seem blissfully unaware.
So I repeat: Your law enforcement bona fides are taking huge hits today... as per your usual whenever you lamely attempt to explain practically anything pertaining to law and wind up flailing and proving you know basically nothing. Thanks for the assist; it wasn't necessary, of course, but thanks for proving our point.
You Dumbocrats introduced Joe & Hunter Biden into evidence and therefore that line of inquiry is perfectly permissible in the Senate trial..
Of course, it was Rudy Giuliani working for Donald Trump that requested a quid pro quo in exchange for multiple things of which digging up dirt on Hunter and Joe Biden was one of those things, but don't let facts get in the way of your ridiculous insistence that "Justice Roberts will have no choice" than to preside over a Senate trial of Joe Biden.
Hillary can play Trump like a fiddle this election...all she has to do is say things that hint she might run against him and his supporters turn all their focus on her and off the actual candidates. Best thing is that the more we try to tell them that she has no intention of running, the more rabidly they believe that she is!
There you go using that word “facts” again. The FACT I have is that you admitted to me that you had never worked as a LEO in any police department, but that you had supposedly served as an MP when in the military.
No, that is your CLAIM..
You have NO FACTS to support it because it never happened..
Apparently, it is YOU who have a problem with the definition of FACT...
Moron..
Mercifully, a new column will be up and not a moment too soon.
Hillary can play Trump like a fiddle this election...
Yea.. You made the exact same claim LAST election..
And, as usual, you were 10000% COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG!!!!
BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Mercifully, a new column will be up and not a moment too soon.
Yea, but they will start with the same old bullshit and the same old lies and then we'll be right back here again tomorrow..
As long as they pollute this forum, it will never end..
Things were really great here before the haters and the bigots showed up..
Russ 82 | Paula 39
Right, Russ! "Hillary" is one of those words that triggers the rubes. Over on Fox News propaganda "pravda," they apparently believe she is the president.
Meanwhile, as Paula reports above, we have Tulsi Gabbard raising her hand furiously in excitement when Hillary doesn't name her by name and then gleefully identifies herself on Fox News repeatedly and now eager to volunteer for a role she was already cast.
So how many months ago was it that we took note that something seemed familiar and we discussed the need to be aware on this very forum that Tulsi Gabbard might possibly be playing the role of Jill Stein in the 2020 election?
*be right back*
Right then, four months ago... and here we are. :)
Mike
86
Yea, but they will start with the same old bullshit and the same old lies and then we'll be right back here again tomorrow..
As long as they pollute this forum, it will never end..
Would you like some cheese to go with your bitchy little incessant whine?
Got news for you, Mike. Your standard operational repetitive lies and "same old bullshit" often repeated spew preceded any of the posters whom you whine like a toddler about. It's always been your modus operandi on this forum going way back to label anyone who was educated enough to see right through your obvious lies, outright fabrications, fake quotes, and just generally uneducated garden variety ignorance as "haters" and "bigots."
Things were really great here before the haters and the bigots showed up..
I rest my case.
You've been trolling this forum as a whole and anyone who disagreed with individually with your standard circular sophistry and goalpost moving exercises and name calling spew long before those you are blaming for it showed up. It's all archived at the links to your left, you know. :)
So, yer saying that if I agree with you yer gonna alter your opinion so we don't agree??
Nope. Not what I'm saying at all. I'm going to keep trying to alter my opinion so that it's more nearly correct. That means, among other things, not altering the parts that are already more nearly correct than the alternatives I'm contemplating at any particular moment. So I need to weigh arguments both against and for my current opinions. Not arguments against or for a bunch of R talking points that I consider non-starters.
Does Mike Pence have the power to make a ruling on all evidentiary questions during a Senate trial of the President of the United States? Nope!
Mike Pence is president of the Senate. That doesn't give him any power at all. When the Senate is trying impeachments, the chief justice presides. That gives him exactly the same amount of power.
Now, just because the rules of the Senate say that he has the power to rule on evidentiary questions, you may think that the rules of the Senate give him the power to rule on evidentiary questions. But that would make sense, kind of like having the president of the Senate preside in the Senate would make sense.
The key fact about the rules is that they are subject to interpretation. And disputes about the interpretation of the rules are decided by a majority vote of the Senate. Also known as whatever is deemed to be to the political advantage of the Republican Party.
So as long as John Roberts rules the way Mitch McConnell wants him to, he gets to rule on evidentiary questions, and anything else that the rules say he does. That's the same as having no power at all.
dsws
90
Mike Pence is president of the Senate. That doesn't give him any power at all.
Incorrect. As Vice President of the United States and therefore President of the Senate, Mike Pence currently has the power to cast the deciding vote when the Senate is equally divided, and depending on the issue he's deciding, of course, that power can mean the difference in a lot of people's lives so that power definitely doesn't meet your definition of "doesn't give him any power at all." In fact, it was indeed the "powerless" Mike Pence who:
* Cast six tie-breaking votes in his first year in office, the most of any Vice President in his first year in office in the entire history of our nation.
* Cast the first ever tie-breaking vote in the history of our nation to confirm a Cabinet member: Betsy DeVos.
* Cast the first ever tie-breaking vote in the history of our nation to confirm a judicial nominee: Jonathan Kobes, United States Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit.
When the Senate is trying impeachments, the chief justice presides. That gives him exactly the same amount of power.
By the same amount of power, I presume you mean your definition of "doesn't give him any power at all." That too is incorrect.
I'm going to do you a favor and supply the link to the current "Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials." You're welcome.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf
Now, just because the rules of the Senate say that he has the power to rule on evidentiary questions, you may think that the rules of the Senate give him the power to rule on evidentiary questions.
You seem intent on proving my case for me. So you think the Senate rules don't mean what is written in the Senate rules?
But that would make sense, kind of like having the president of the Senate preside in the Senate would make sense.
Actually, the Vice President/President of the Senate did used to preside over the Senate and appoint Senators to standing committees and regulate access to the Senate galleries and even supervise the keeping of the Senate Journal, but these duties were later removed by the Senate rules; however, I cannot fathom how you would equate the current Vice President's role in the day-to-day running of the Senate -- or lack thereof -- to the role played by the Chief Justice of the United States as set forth by the Constitution and the current Senate rules for Impeachment of the President of the United States.
The key fact about the rules is that they are subject to interpretation. And disputes about the interpretation of the rules are decided by a majority vote of the Senate. Also known as whatever is deemed to be to the political advantage of the Republican Party.
And you are naturally assuming they will ignore their sworn oaths to God and the United States to uphold their duty to our written statute and vote in lockstep against it? Keep in mind there's an awful lot of self-described Christians in the Senate who supposedly take their oaths to God and country seriously... particularly when God and a whole lot of Americans with a brain will be watching.
So as long as John Roberts rules the way Mitch McConnell wants him to, he gets to rule on evidentiary questions, and anything else that the rules say he does. That's the same as having no power at all.
Incorrect again. The rules of the Senate require that McConnell take this command seriously. So much so that in order to prevent Mike Pence (who as we've discussed formally presides over the Senate) from refusing to allow Chief Justice Roberts to play his role mandated by Constitution, the Senate rules governing impeachment require Mike Pence or proxy to swear in the chief justice immediately after the charges by the House are announced on the floor. The Senate rules then explicitly empower the chief justice to "direct all the forms of proceedings" during the trial, while the Senate is granted the "power to enforce obedience" to all the rulings by the chief justice.
You should really read those impeachment rules. You seem as woefully uninformed as Mike... not Mike Pence... Mike the whining board troll who has trouble understanding the written word. :)
It doesn't matter what the rules say. They can be "interpreted" however 51 senators want to interpret them. A senator who disagrees can't appeal to the Supreme Legislative Arbitrator, because there isn't one.
Now, most likely, make some token show of following some approximation to what's written. But everyone in the room will know that nothing in the rules will have any possibility of standing against partisan advantage.
Keep in mind there's an awful lot of self-described Christians in the Senate who supposedly take their oaths to God and country seriously.
Lol. Up until then, I thought you were serious.
BTW, thank you for digging up the Senate rules on impeachment. It is worth having some idea what rules they will sort of be pretending to follow.
Item VII of the Senate impeachment rules:
And the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the Members of the Senate.
In other words, a majority of the Senate, not the chief justice, gets the final say on those questions.
dsws
92
It doesn't matter what the rules say.
You can either continue to play/be ignorant or allow yourself to entertain the idea that laws and rules are written for a reason and happen to matter.
They can be "interpreted" however 51 senators want to interpret them.
This "words have no meaning" and/or can be "interpreted however" argument I'm seeing a lot lately is some fairly weak tea... like the right-wingnut theory that if Donald Trump didn't specifically utter the phrase "I'm going to need a quid pro quo in return for these millions in aid" means there was no request of "something for something," the meaning of the words. It's very weak tea designed to confuse people with noise versus facts.
A senator who disagrees can't appeal to the Supreme Legislative Arbitrator, because there isn't one.
*laughs*
Superfluous nonsense in context to our discussion since I never claimed there was a "Supreme Legislative Arbitrator," and what do those words you've interjected even mean to a guy like you who has just claimed that it "doesn't matter what the rules say" and that "51 Senators" could interpret them however they wanted? Rhetorical question.
Now, most likely, make some token show of following some approximation to what's written. But everyone in the room will know that nothing in the rules will have any possibility of standing against partisan advantage.
You're now walking back your prior statement... still seemingly determined to make my point for me. I can also tell you know little of longstanding trial procedure, and we're discussing an impeachment trial, you know. Also, this "partisan advantage" you keep prattling on and on about requires merely three votes for a tie and four votes to be rendered moot... you know... with all the visual impact of a huge John McCain thumbs down in the wee small hours of the morning.
Lol. Up until then, I thought you were serious.
Oh, you gave up. I can certainly understand why because words apparently have meaning to you. They have meaning to the majority as well, you know. :)
New post up. Replying there.
dsws
93
BTW, thank you for digging up the Senate rules on impeachment. It is worth having some idea what rules they will sort of be pretending to follow.
You're welcome.
You know, you could have argued that the Senate could use that partisan advantage to change those Senate rules before the impeachment trial, but I'd have explained how that partisan advantage isn't quite the advantage you're making it out to be.
Nixon too was counting on that partisan advantage since he appointed four of the Supreme Court justices to the United States Supreme Court who decided United States v. Nixon. Rehnquist recused, of course, but Nixon lost in spectacular fashion when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against him. He resigned 16 days later... and the rest is history. :)
dsws
94
You're preaching to the choir, dude, and might I add that it is notable that suddenly the rules you claimed don't matter are mattering to you. Nice progress.
You seem to also have conceded your argument that the Chief Justice has no power; however, you are still seemingly assuming that the Republicans will march in lockstep and redefine longstanding trial procedure. :)
Will no one provide the report I asked for?
oops wrong thread … yikes