|
I read that Senator McConnell is, by his own words,
storage
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
|
Replies: 69
| visibility 1,177
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I read that Senator McConnell is, by his own words,
Dec 13, 2019, 9:10 AM
|
|
working closely with White House counsel in preparation for the possibility of a Senate impeachment trial.
Do you think is is appropriate? Is this akin to a defense attorney coordinating with a juror in a criminal trial, or is that a faulty analogy? Should all Senators display an impartiality on this prior to the trial?
|
|
|
|
 |
Lot o points [155944]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65832
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Seems we were told yesterday in another thread
Dec 13, 2019, 9:12 AM
|
|
That this isn’t the court system and the rules can be whatever people make them.
I accepted the explanation then and I guess I have to accept it now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56102]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31650
Joined: 8/27/02
|
That's what I was gonna say. It's not a courtroom.***
Dec 13, 2019, 9:13 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
The impeachment in the house isn't.
Dec 13, 2019, 9:15 AM
|
|
In the Senate it's much closer to an actual trial. Or suppose to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56102]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31650
Joined: 8/27/02
|
The White House counsel isn't gonna be the defense attorney.
Dec 13, 2019, 9:17 AM
|
|
Right? My understanding is House Dems are gonna be the prosecutors and Senate GOP guys are gonna be the defense attorneys.
Either way it's still a political process and not a criminal or civil process, so it's not a 1:1 comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/26/15
|
Whoa...that's not true, is it?
Dec 13, 2019, 9:22 AM
|
|
Senators should not be "prosecutors" or "defenders". They are the ones who decide, not the ones who argue. Right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I mean, they debate and argue on the vote, I suppose.
Dec 13, 2019, 9:23 AM
|
|
But they aren't the ones "making the case," right? The House hdlivers the charge, and the President defends against the charge in the Senate. Is this not how it works?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56102]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31650
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Clinton used private attorneys to defend him.
Dec 13, 2019, 9:30 AM
[ in reply to Whoa...that's not true, is it? ] |
|
Senators can file motions to dismiss charges against the president, which would put them in a role as defense attorneys. In any case, there's no presumption of impartiality for senators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Thanks for the info.
Dec 13, 2019, 9:34 AM
|
|
I guess I would say do you think there *should be* more of at least a show impartiality?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56102]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31650
Joined: 8/27/02
|
It would be nice if they at least pretend to be impartial.
Dec 13, 2019, 9:41 AM
|
|
That's too much to expect nowadays.
Here's some more information that distinguishes the senate from a traditional jury:
The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, man-dates, writs, precepts, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary way contempts of, and disobedience to, its authority, orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgments, and to make all lawful orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice. And the Sergeant at Arms, under the direction of the Senate, may employ such aid and assistance as may be necessary to enforce, execute, and carry into effect the lawful orders, mandates, writs, and precepts of the Senate.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf
Message was edited by: Murcielago®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Thank you so much for the link. Great help.***
Dec 13, 2019, 9:43 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Am I reading this correctly?
Dec 13, 2019, 9:50 AM
|
|
It looks to me like the Senate must summon the President, and the President must appear to answer the articles.
Upon the presentation of articles of impeachment 177
and the organization of the Senate as hereinbefore provided, a writ of summons shall issue to the person impeached, reciting said articles, and notifying him to appear
before the Senate
But then later, it implies that he can send a representative
The person impeached shall then be called to appear
and answer the articles of impeachment against him. If
he appears, or any person for him, the appearance shall
be recorded, stating particularly if by himself, or by agent
or attorney, naming the person appearing and the capacity
in which he appears. If he does not appear, either personally or by agent or attorney, the same shall be recorded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56102]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31650
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Sounds like a preliminary hearing in criminal court.
Dec 13, 2019, 10:02 AM
|
|
The accused stands before a judge and has to plead guilty or not guilty. After that the trial would begin. If the president doesn't show up, the trial will proceed anyway with the assumption that the president is not guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Personally I believe that dems in the Senate should
Dec 13, 2019, 9:48 AM
[ in reply to It would be nice if they at least pretend to be impartial. ] |
|
give it right back to them.
If the pubs want to call Joe and Hunter in, the dems should make a motion to call Stormy pronstar whatever her name is in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10871]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12937
Joined: 4/18/12
|
Re: Personally I believe that dems in the Senate should
Dec 14, 2019, 12:35 PM
|
|
That would backfire badly. Moving the goalpost to a subject completely unrelated to any of this would scream of desperation. Not a good look for the Democrats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3673
Joined: 11/18/00
|
Re: The White House counsel isn't gonna be the defense attorney.
Dec 13, 2019, 9:27 AM
[ in reply to The White House counsel isn't gonna be the defense attorney. ] |
|
House Dems will prosecute. Trump lawyers will defend. Supreme Court Justice will Preside over the hearings. The 100 Senators are the Jury. Need 2/3 majority to convict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56102]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31650
Joined: 8/27/02
|
But there are also Impeachment Trial Committees comprised of
Dec 13, 2019, 9:50 AM
|
|
senators who supervise the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. They compile the evidentiary record and present it to the full Senate, which would put them in a prosecutorial or defensive position as opposed to being unbiased jurors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I'd agree with the first clause
Dec 13, 2019, 9:20 AM
[ in reply to Seems we were told yesterday in another thread ] |
|
"this isn't the court system," but I don't like the second clause "rules can be whatever people make them".
I doubt we're talking about a case of rules here. I doubt it's written anywhere in a rule that "Senators shall not talk to White House counsel". So I think this is more of an issue of opinion. Do people have the opinion that this is appropriate or inappropriate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47799]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44519
Joined: 9/5/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1405]
TigerPulse: 54%
Posts: 3412
Joined: 1/10/13
|
Re: yeah, where's CU17 when you need Them***
Dec 13, 2019, 10:22 AM
|
|
I'd already posted when you posted this, creep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47799]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44519
Joined: 9/5/02
|
Re: yeah, where's CU17 when you need Them***
Dec 13, 2019, 10:33 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1405]
TigerPulse: 54%
Posts: 3412
Joined: 1/10/13
|
Re: yeah, where's CU17 when you need Them***
Dec 13, 2019, 11:03 AM
|
|
Still pretending to be a lawyer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [78892]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26424
Joined: 12/6/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20542]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11687
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Seems we were told yesterday in another thread
Dec 13, 2019, 11:59 AM
[ in reply to Seems we were told yesterday in another thread ] |
|
That this isn’t the court system and the rules can be whatever people make them.
I accepted the explanation then and I guess I have to accept it now.
That actually is the law...and the ironic part is everybody's going to abide by it even if the GOP is extending Trump the right to break it at will.
An interesting conundrum, but at the end of the day, the law is whatever the lawmakers, ultimately, decide it is.
The voters will either make the Senate pay for that, or they won't. If McConnell essentially fails to provide even the illusion of attempting justice, though, he's well and truly attaching his train - and the train of every other Senate GOP member - to Trump.
I'm unsure how wise that is. Does anybody really think Trump is remotely capable of not misbehaving again and building some bridges to shore up that 42% approval rating in a good economy before the next election? Doubtful. And what if the economy tanks? And whatever he does publicly, McConnell and the others have got to be tired of sinking all their political capital into saving Trump from...himself.
Sure, they can bail Trump out of the Ukraine mess. But why did they even have to? It was a reckless, foolhardy, borderline insane move - begun one day after Mueller largely cleared Trump of conspiracy charges with Russia. That's a crisis-maker mentality who almost pathologically doubles down on victory by giving himself yet another chance at crushing defeat, and behind this largely pointless battle is just yet another one. Which has always pretty much been the Story of Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
We all know the senate trail is going to be a
Dec 13, 2019, 9:12 AM
|
|
joke. We all know dems will tear their garments over it just like GOPers in the house are doing now.
My only hope is Roberts slaps that #### down and tries to hold an actual trial and not a circus
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
lol, you didnt seem to have a problem in the Senate***
Dec 13, 2019, 9:22 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
House, not senate***
Dec 13, 2019, 9:23 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
How do you mean?***
Dec 13, 2019, 9:24 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I dont remember seeing you with outrage on how the House
Dec 13, 2019, 9:25 AM
|
|
held their hearings. Or maybe I missed it.
That was the biggest #### show ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
I agree. The republicans turned it into a circus
Dec 13, 2019, 9:27 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I think you'll have to be more specific with your complaint
Dec 13, 2019, 9:33 AM
[ in reply to I dont remember seeing you with outrage on how the House ] |
|
Firstly, if you think my OP in this thread showed "outrage," then I encourage you to read it again. It was just a question to the board. On its face, it seems inappropriate to me, but I'm not sure, and I'm willing for someone to convince it's not inappropriate.
I didn't really watch the hearings, just read recaps of what the witnesses said. I understand there was a lot of grandstanding and whatnot from Congressmen, and that's one of the reasons I don't like to watch that stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
smh***
Dec 13, 2019, 9:39 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [347]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 1062
Joined: 7/1/19
|
Haha, the Trumpie can’t come up with a real response to
Dec 13, 2019, 11:01 AM
|
|
rational writing and objectivity. He’s never seen it before in his republican bubble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56102]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31650
Joined: 8/27/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1405]
TigerPulse: 54%
Posts: 3412
Joined: 1/10/13
|
Re: I read that Senator McConnell is, by his own words,
Dec 13, 2019, 9:26 AM
|
|
It's political by design, so I don't see much of a problem. Having said that, if it's a bad look, McConnell could pay the price politically.
But the House and Senate are given pretty broad authority to conduct the process as they wish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I guess I'm still trying to shoehorn it too much into
Dec 13, 2019, 9:38 AM
|
|
a criminal trial algorithm.
I'm still thinking like, the House found enough evidence to accuse the President, but we still don't know enough to know whether he's guilty or not, which is the purpose of the Senate trial.
Maybe I should just lose all that thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97731]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64869
Joined: 7/13/02
|
But you said this was political. So it's fine, since this
Dec 13, 2019, 9:38 AM
|
|
is political.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Does it being a political process invalidate a
Dec 13, 2019, 9:39 AM
|
|
need for impartiality from Senators?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97731]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64869
Joined: 7/13/02
|
What's impartial about politics? Other than maybe nothing.***
Dec 13, 2019, 9:51 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2693]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
Moscow Mitch knows what to do
Dec 13, 2019, 10:22 AM
|
|
And he knows how to tweak his GOP brethren’s lust for power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
McConnell could just dismiss the articles
Dec 13, 2019, 10:55 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I haven't decided what is best for Trump but I can honestly
Dec 13, 2019, 12:05 PM
|
|
say that Trump's motivation to have a full trial is more about sticking it up the dems' rump than it is about vindicating him of the charge. The polls reflect that impeachment is distasteful to the voters right now.
My first inclination was to drag it out and use it to torture Joe Biden and finish him off once and for all. Relax, it's politics and clearly the dems are playing hardball so that's fair as rain.
I'm just wondering what the collateral damage might be for pushing the issue onto the voters. I can't decide how I'd handle this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
The trial should be about the President's guilt/innocence
Dec 13, 2019, 12:11 PM
|
|
And his fitness for office with respect to that guilt/innocence. It should be about nothing else. Definitely it should not be about how it affects the 2020 election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: The trial should be about the President's guilt/innocence
Dec 13, 2019, 2:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
No, it's not.
Dec 13, 2019, 11:34 AM
|
|
It's no more right than the dem majority in the house preloading the rules to put the intelligence oversight committee in charge of the investigation so the entire investigation into impeachment could be held behind closed doors which gave the dem party complete control over what the public hears, sees and knows about the investigation.
Take a look at my perspective. If a foundation is laid 16 inches out of square the entire house will be crooked. Even the best carpenter can't square the frame unless he wants it to cantilever over the foundation.
Basically, you can't make chicken salad out of chickenchit and it doesn't matter how much mayo and pickles you stir in it.
The process was an epic fail from the start. The house makes up their rules as it goes along and you were all about everyone following the rules when all that happened. Now the president's party provides to work as the defense and you're confused?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I am against all not following of rules.
Dec 13, 2019, 11:47 AM
|
|
By anyone from any party. So if members of the House violated rules, I am against that.
Again, this post isn't really about rules, though. It's more about opinion on whether something is appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You're wishy washy on this.
Dec 13, 2019, 12:13 PM
|
|
You started out being all about rules and when I explain how the rules were changed to favor the majority party's position you want to ignore that and address fair or right vs wrong.
It's OK for the majority to hide the investigation in the basement and completely control what is made public but you're stressing over the senate majority coordinating with the POTUS?
You're not that dumb, you're just trolling, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Where did I say that was OK?
Dec 13, 2019, 12:15 PM
|
|
In fact, I said I was against that. Hmph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
To be more specific, I stated at the time, and still say
Dec 13, 2019, 12:19 PM
|
|
That I'm not against closed-door sessions in general. In fact, best case would be that we didn't even know an impeachment inquiry was happening, and the President's name would not be stained by potentially unfounded accusations (in the same way that grand juries are not public).
However, if anyone behind those closed doors leaked information about what was said, that person should be punished, up to and including prosecution for a crime. We should have never heard anything about what was said in the closed door hearings. I, personally, did not click on stories about the results of those meetings, because I didn't want to know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You didn't keep up.
Dec 13, 2019, 1:13 PM
|
|
Adam Schiff had/has complete control over what was/is made public. That's the power of his position.
Schiff didn't leak, he declassified. His power was absolute inside and outside the investigation.
Pubs couldn't get the witnesses they wanted to testify, questions by pubs to dem witnesses were cut off without witnesses responses.
As I said, when you pour a foundation 16" out of square...the entire process is bogus, a witch hunt, a political exercise to damage the POTUS. It's a two year old trying to get desert before dinner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You insist that rules are dominate.
Dec 13, 2019, 1:08 PM
[ in reply to Where did I say that was OK? ] |
|
When you take such a staunch stand of supporting rules while knowing that the rules were changed to allow this impeachment to go forward while hiding the truth of the proceeding you send a message that you support what the rules allow.
'Obedience and adherence to "Rules." is how you support your position of justifying this impeachment.
edited for reason
Message was edited by: ClemsonTiger1988®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Again, you are not reading my posts, I guess.
Dec 13, 2019, 1:25 PM
|
|
*I AM AGAINST THE IMPEACHMENT*
Put in another way
*I AM NOT FOR IMPEACHMENT*
I hope maybe I have made this clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
The impeachment will take care of itself.
Dec 13, 2019, 2:35 PM
|
|
I am trying to discuss the un'fairness,' of the process which leads to this impeachment. Trump had no representation in the house intelligence oversight investigation and inquiry. That is the pubs' biggest complaint. It is called due process which ever POTUS previously impeached had at that juncture of the process.
Impeachment is trivial after such a nonsensical inquiry/investigation held behind closed doors with one party have complete control of the information released.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
By the way, rules can be changed.
Dec 13, 2019, 1:28 PM
[ in reply to You insist that rules are dominate. ] |
|
I don't know specifically what you are referring to when you say "rules were changed," but as long as a rule was changed, within the rules, then the changed rule becomes the new rule.
It's like if a speed limit got changed from 70 to 65. As long as that change was made in a legal way, then 65 is the new rule, and the right thing to do is abide by it. Now, if someone just took spray paint to the sign to change the number, then that's different.
But again, I don't know specifically what rule you are saying was changed, and how.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Previously impeachment inquiries were held by the...
Dec 13, 2019, 2:32 PM
|
|
judicial oversight committee and were not classified. That is the 'rule,' which changed. Maybe that's why you're confused and thinking I'm misreading your posts.
Why, we can't definitively say but it strongly appears that the goal was to hold the inquiry/investigation by the intelligence oversight committee so that the information could be labeled classified and only Adam Schiff could release the transpirings within.
If you notice only clips and pieces of testimonies were released and the republicans whining about not getting to call witnesses or even be able to thoroughly question the witnesses which dems called to testify you may have your first clue as to what happened, how it happened and gain some insight as to why it happened as it did.
Please discuss the 'fairness,' of adherence to the 'new rules.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Re: Previously impeachment inquiries were held by the...
Dec 13, 2019, 2:49 PM
|
|
Unless it's written down in the Constitution (I know it's not), or in some Congressional procedure, then it's not a "rule" that judicial conducts the inquiry. Maybe it is written down somewhere like that, and if so, I will consider that and perhaps change my mind on this issue.
I don't care about the dem/pub distinction. The committees called witnesses as the committees saw fit. Those committees are within their rights to do so. If the members of the House aren't satisfied with the witnesses the committees brought in, then they should vote "no" on the articles of impeachment, which is a vote I would agree with, as I've said.
I don't know if I agree that it was unfair for the President to not "have representation". From what I have read, the Senate trial is the primary opportunity for the President to defend himself. That is where he "answers" the articles. As of yet, the President has not been accused of anything for which he has the need to defend himself. It seems he did not want to participate anyway. The President can't complain about not being able to defend himself, and also refuse to participate in the inquiry, or allow those who work for him to do so. That's having your cake and eating it, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
If there is no rule the precedent(s) is the rule.
Dec 13, 2019, 3:18 PM
|
|
You just don't see anything wrong with denial of process here?
Again, every impeached president previous to this has had representation in the inquiry. Every previous inquiry has allowed both parties to call witnesses and exhaustively question all witnesses.
The president was not offered opportunity to defend himself because that would have included both parties and the POTUS being able to call witnesses.
The investigative process ended when the process moved from the intelligence oversight to the judiciary committee. The JOC chair called those 4 'witnesses,' too. Actually, they weren't witnesses and witnessed nothing.
It's been a one party party since the onset and complete beyond reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Let me phrase it this way...
Dec 13, 2019, 3:28 PM
|
|
I think it would have been beneficial if the President had testified, or someone who works for the President. But I'm not sure I agree that not having that violated any rules, or makes the whole thing a "sham".
If the committees had called witnesses that were more defensive of the President, then I would have supported that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Uncle, calfrope, I give up.
Dec 13, 2019, 6:01 PM
|
|
How the concept of due process seems so trivial is beyond my comprehension. I am a failure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Understand that I believe due process is very important.
Dec 14, 2019, 7:11 AM
|
|
Where we disagree is that I think it's a stretch to say that the President is being denied due process during these proceedings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: I read that Senator McConnell is, by his own words,
Dec 13, 2019, 11:35 AM
|
|
He also said that "The Senate will not proceed in a manner not consistent with the desires of the White House". The "jury" in this "trial" is conspiring with the defendant. Not even a pretense of objectivity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
OMG, the majority party isn't being objective!!!!***
Dec 13, 2019, 12:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30158
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Party before Country.***
Dec 13, 2019, 3:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
That could never happen in congress.***
Dec 13, 2019, 3:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30158
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Did Tom Daschle do it during Clinton's impeachment?***
Dec 13, 2019, 3:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
All of them, bar none, do it daily.
Dec 13, 2019, 5:59 PM
|
|
I need a sarcasm icon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30158
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Did Tom Daschle do what McConnell is admitting to?***
Dec 13, 2019, 6:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: Did Tom Daschle do what McConnell is admitting to?***
Dec 14, 2019, 12:25 PM
|
|
I do not know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30158
Joined: 9/9/06
|
He didn't.***
Dec 14, 2019, 2:17 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9788
Joined: 4/27/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 69
| visibility 1,177
|
|
|
|
50
