GOP gets Snookered by DEMs again. NOW let's see if the Senate GOP has any balls

[Jabbar + 465]

Do you have faith in your U.S. institutions ?  Justice Department ? FBI ? Congress ? 

If Pelosi does not forward Impeachment to the Senate the Senate Republicans must take action.  They probably can't force the issue but there are other options .

The Senate Republicans have always viewed themselves as Statesmen and above the fray of the House.  They need to face reality , that era is long gone.  The DEMs don't play by those rules. The DEMs don't play fair.  Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell needs to grow some balls.

1.Investigate the illegal leak of the President's conversation with Ukraine President.  Subpeona whistle blower Ciaramella and his former Whitehouse friends Sean Misko and Abigail Grace. Who leaked the conversation ?  General Vidman ? Abigail Grace ? Sean and Abigail now work for Schiff.  They all met with Ciaramella and devised "whistle blower" ruse.  That can't be right ? 

2.  Investigate Hunter Biden's Ukraine scam and Joe's threat to hold up $1 Billion .  Republicans don't investigate because the DEMs say you can't.  Come on. 

3. Do a Senate investigation into FISA abuse.  The IG's duty was to find the facts.  Not to give his opinion.  He gives his opinion that there was no political bias.  That's nuts.

There is so much more.  The GOP Senate needs to get off their butts and do their job.  

The Republicans are perennial losers.  

The GOP needs to hire some good Lawyers. The Republicans House lawyer during Impeachment proceedings sucked.  

Trump needs to get some good Lawyers.  His "gut" is no match for the Washington sharks.  Trump should keep his personal lawyer Giuliani out of all this.  Giuliani was a great Prosecuter in his day . . . but no help now.

Barr and Durham are supposed to be on the trail .   .  .   .   but you can't count on that.  Even so the DEMs will eat Republicans lunch and do damage before their reports come out in the summer.  The whole Dem Impeachment was beautifully staged and coordinated. 

Do you have faith in your Republican Senate ? 

GROW A PAIR

 

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by Jabbar

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3.  An Impeachment Role for the Supreme Court?

Do the charges against Trump pass constitutional muster? The justices should decide before the Senate does.  ...

[Jabbar + 465]

11 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

3.  An Impeachment Role for the Supreme Court?

Do the charges against Trump pass constitutional muster? The justices should decide before the Senate does.  ...

The Constitution gives all the power over Impeachment  trial to the Senate.  They are judge and jury.  

Chief Justice can make rulings but Senate can over rule with simple majority.

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Jabbar

[rossh + 18]

I thought it was poor judgment of Sen. Graham to show his hand this early.  The plan to dismiss the charge for lack of evidence is the perfect legal solution.  It shows what a sham the House did.   But don't broadcast it ahead of time.  That just give more reasons to Pelosi for more idiotic lunacy and antics.

I think the Dems were always going to hold off sending it to the Senate until after xmas, because they want to keep the topic hot over the break.  Maybe they never send it, but keep adding new charges to it, and use that as talking points all the way to November?

 

[Boat + 1,323]

I love this there is no evidence argument. The transcript has been out awhile. It’s quite clear the message Trump was sending. You boys are acting like your Germany and anyone not supporting the loud mouthed shuck isn’t pure and somehow came up with a conspiracy theory. I do enjoy reading the right wing extremist plays on common sense though. 
Your problem and mine is this is a battle for power funded by oligarchs. The Dems may have the advantage there. But heck, the whitehouse released the transcript and the phone call was heard by many. Didn’t take money to look the fool.

[Boat + 1,323]

6 hours ago, rossh said:

I thought it was poor judgment of Sen. Graham to show his hand this early.  The plan to dismiss the charge for lack of evidence is the perfect legal solution.  It shows what a sham the House did.   But don't broadcast it ahead of time.  That just give more reasons to Pelosi for more idiotic lunacy and antics.

I think the Dems were always going to hold off sending it to the Senate until after xmas, because they want to keep the topic hot over the break.  Maybe they never send it, but keep adding new charges to it, and use that as talking points all the way to November?

 

The Dems will demand documents and Trump team witnesses that have been denied. Off to the Supreme Court. Then we see what happens. A theory anyhow.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

40 minutes ago, Boat said:

The Dems will demand documents and Trump team witnesses that have been denied. Off to the Supreme Court. Then we see what happens. A theory anyhow.

I'm not sure about this. Justice Roberts will be the Judge presiding over the Senate trial. But I'm pretty sure whatever the Senate decides is what the Constitution provides for. In other words, unless I recall this wrongly, the Senate trial is the dispositive body. With Trump, who knows. I've looked at all the other Democratic candidates: each one scares me in a different way. Warren scares me most of all. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

52 minutes ago, Boat said:

I love this there is no evidence argument. The transcript has been out awhile. It’s quite clear the message Trump was sending. You boys are acting like your Germany and anyone not supporting the loud mouthed shuck isn’t pure and somehow came up with a conspiracy theory. I do enjoy reading the right wing extremist plays on common sense though. 
Your problem and mine is this is a battle for power funded by oligarchs. The Dems may have the advantage there. But heck, the whitehouse released the transcript and the phone call was heard by many. Didn’t take money to look the fool.

Take off your redstate glasses and it doesn't read nearly so "clear". In fact it has always been open to interpretation. The Demoncrats could do nothing more than trot up a bunch of otherwise unemployable professors to give their opinion as you just have, about what someone else is thinking. Not remotely possible, not now, not ever. 

[Otis11 + 551]

9 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

3.  An Impeachment Role for the Supreme Court?

Do the charges against Trump pass constitutional muster? The justices should decide before the Senate does.  ...

"if the one unimpeachable authority left" - not quite. Technically the Supreme Court can be impeached too... Just ask Samuel Chase.

But that would be a decent approach - to get the Supreme Court involved. This would have to be done by the Senate, however. The Supreme Court can't pull it over under their jurisdiction. I suspect, however, it will stand. The House has wide discrecion by precident in opening an impeachment.

My path forward would be to look at the rule of procedure in the Senate and see if you could reasonably control a trial (Roberts is historically a wild card, and I doubt the Dems would go so far as to attack the swing vote in the Supreme Court. Also need to have to votes to keep the proceedings on track and not go off on a goose chase). If so, accept the articles and use the trial to pull forward all the sources the Dems are keeping burried. Expose the corruption.

If you don't have the votes to keep a trial on the rails, dismiss outright. This will be played as 'partisan' by the Dems and MSM. Fine. Launch investigations into those players behind this and bring them all to stand trial. That will air the dirty laundry and the American public will see. (Just need to act fast)

7 hours ago, rossh said:

I thought it was poor judgment of Sen. Graham to show his hand this early.  The plan to dismiss the charge for lack of evidence is the perfect legal solution.  It shows what a sham the House did.   But don't broadcast it ahead of time.  That just give more reasons to Pelosi for more idiotic lunacy and antics.

I think the Dems were always going to hold off sending it to the Senate until after xmas, because they want to keep the topic hot over the break.  Maybe they never send it, but keep adding new charges to it, and use that as talking points all the way to November?

 

I think they're holding it until January because of an obscure rule that keeps Senators from campaigning during an impeachment proceeding. This knocks many of the publically supported (but not nationally viable) Dem Presidential candidates from running in key Caucuses in January, but also keeps Republican Senators up for re-election in swing states from campaigning and gives their Dem challengers a small, but potentially result changing edge over the incumbent. Since there are more Republicans than Dems in this situation, it's a double win for them. (Assuming you want Bloomberg or Biden to win the Dem Nominee)

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 minute of incoherent babbling.  Puppet, following orders.  Gibberish.  Reminds me of Greta trying to speak without a script.

https://twitter.com/M2Madness/status/1207699372055711744

 

[Papillon + 485]

I am unaware of this lady's background or lifestyle sir, but it does appear that she enjoys a drink, quite possibly on a daily basis. This reminds me of an audio version of the ramblings I read earlier regarding enslavement, blockchain, conspiracy drivel and shale. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

17 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

I think they're holding it until January because of an obscure rule that keeps Senators from campaigning during an impeachment proceeding. This knocks many of the publically supported (but not nationally viable) Dem Presidential candidates from running in key Caucuses in January, but also keeps Republican Senators up for re-election in swing states from campaigning and gives their Dem challengers a small, but potentially result changing edge over the incumbent. Since there are more Republicans than Dems in this situation, it's a double win for them. (Assuming you want Bloomberg or Biden to win the Dem Nominee)

 

https://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley/status/1207720412404240386

[Jabbar + 465]

3 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

I'm not sure about this. Justice Roberts will be the Judge presiding over the Senate trial. But I'm pretty sure whatever the Senate decides is what the Constitution provides for. In other words, unless I recall this wrongly, the Senate trial is the dispositive body. With Trump, who knows. I've looked at all the other Democratic candidates: each one scares me in a different way. Warren scares me most of all. 

Correct.  Chief Justice presides. 

In Impeachment the Constitution gives all powers of Judge and Jury to Senate.  Senate makes their own rules.  Not Nancy Pelosi.  She can't extort Senate demanding her version of Senate rules. 

The "swamp mistress" is just making Dems look more unfair.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Jabbar

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 minutes ago, Jabbar said:

In Impeachment the Constitution give all powers to Senate.  Senate makes their own rules.  Not Nancy Pelosi.  She can't extort her version of Senate rules. 

The "swamp mistress" is just making Dems look more unfair.

[Jabbar + 465]

1 hour ago, Papillon said:

I am unaware of this lady's background or lifestyle sir, but it does appear that she enjoys a drink, quite possibly on a daily basis. This reminds me of an audio version of the ramblings I read earlier regarding enslavement, blockchain, conspiracy drivel and shale. 

Husband big real estate tycoon San Fran. They own several vineyards up in the valley.

[Jabbar + 465]

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Senator Graham meets with Trump.

Then Fox interviews Graham

"Trump mad as hell want his day in court."

Graham said this trial will be handled exactly like Clinton trial :

* House managers present their case.

* Presidents Lawyers respond to Articles

* No motion to dismiss

* No witneses allowed, like Clinton

* Vote as to aquit or guilt

* Interview goes into detail.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6117185717001#sp=show-clips

Graham said if DEMs were to be successful in getting four Republican Senators to agree with DEMs re the four witnesses they want he assumes Trump would excert his executive privilege.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Jabbar

[Papillon + 485]

2 hours ago, Jabbar said:

Husband big real estate tycoon San Fran. They own several vineyards up in the valley.

I see sir. Well the vineyards part says it all.

[remake it + 288]

4 hours ago, Otis11 said:

I think they're holding it until January because of an obscure rule that keeps Senators from campaigning during an impeachment proceeding.

Once the Senate decides to commence the trial it is necessary for all Senators to be present at all times in order for the final vote to be based on each and everyone participating in the entire process however it's also the Senates prerogative to change the present rules so that the burden on Senators in an electoral predicament could be ameliorated.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

1 minute of incoherent babbling.  Puppet, following orders.  Gibberish.  Reminds me of Greta trying to speak without a script.

https://twitter.com/M2Madness/status/1207699372055711744

 

Flummoxed much?  Oh, brother.  I don't know if she drinks or does the prescription route, but if the lady were talking to her bartender he/she would call her a cab, and if it was her doctor he/she would change her prescription.  I'll give her credit, she tried to talk her colleagues out of the impeachment route for some time, but in the end she had to go along with the AOCs that have joined Congress.  Maybe it's time to go quietly into the night.....

[rossh + 18]

Dem House whip Clyburn on CNN.....   suggest to never send the article to the senate, because they can't get a guarantee of success.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4KCdLOChFI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVe4rK2fsVk

These house Dems want to dictate to the Senate what to do.   The Dem lunacy keeps getting bigger.

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by rossh