Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by Ouchie-Z-Clown, Sep 24, 2019.
Mature, as always.
Our tax dollars are spent on making clown pictures?
So it appears the best new story out of this is after Taylor testified behind closed doors a colleague told him that Trump had a direct conversation with Sondland where Trump was in effect checking up on the status of the investigations he demanded.
Based on this, believe it or not, it sounds like Sondland is now going to be called back, AGAIN, to again clarify his magical memory which didn't tell that story either the first time, or the time he came back with a refreshed memory and clarified. So it sounds like the Dems are going to give Sondland another chance to avoid perjury charges, again, by coming clean about that phone call.
if true, of course it's huge since it proves Trump was in fact directing this stuff and checking up on it, so he can't just throw Sondland and Rudy under the bus.
Probably a good time to pile this on top of the turd sundae.....
I was watching at that point. And it was glorious.
And there's Santorum on CNN tonight insisting that the Ukraine situation in no way harmed US international security and if it did, then Obama should be impeached because he never gave Ukraine monetary aid at all. Nevermind that neither did Trump, he had to literally be forced to do it, by the Whistleblower, he was holding it back for political leverage until the report was filed.
How can they not think Trump using a cellphone like that is not a threat to National Security?
emails were "lock her up" but Trump refuses to cooperate with security protocols and thinks it's ok?
McConnell: The Senate must hold a trial.
I was curious about the Majority Leader's position, so I turned to the constitution:
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
Art. I Sec. 3.
This is interesting, because there are relatively few constitutional requirements for impeaching a US President. First, the Senate must decide his fate; they can't delegate it. Second, every Senator must take an oath or affirmation when sitting in judgment of an impeachment proceeding. Third, if POTUS is being impeached, then the Chief Justice must preside. Fourth, it takes 2/3rds of the Senate to remove someone from office. And fifth, the Senate's penalties if they choose to impeach are limited.
And that's it. McConnell appears to be worried about setting bad precedent by allowing a motion to dismiss at the early stages of any removal proceeding. Or he's completely misreading or misunderstanding the Constitution.
The GOP is missing the point. Going after the whistleblower is like going after the cape instead of the matador.
It doesn't matter what the whistleblower said or didn't say - he doesn't have personal knowledge. He's relying on what others told him.
What matters is what the others-who had personal knowledge-saw and heard.
Honestly, the GOP's strategy is misplaced here. They should be arguing that yes, all of this is true, 100%, we admit it, but it's not an impeachable offense.
Which ultimately fails because, of course, it is.
It seems like they are trying to
dismiss the original complaint as hearsay the way they’ve seen judges dismiss assertions as hearsay on TV. Or that a judge would refuse a “warrant” based on hearsay. I wonder if this is just a strategy or if they believe it applies because they want to believe it.
It’s only hearsay because they’re hiding all the people that had first hand participation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Your last sentence provides the reasoning for the first. They're not missing anything.
Separate names with a comma.