Jump to content

The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump


Nanker

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Albwan said:

       Something I find very troubling is the left and the media keep repeating the phrases 'undisputed' or 'uncontested' in

regards to 'facts' about what they feel Trump has done....This to me is more of their mask slipping, because what they are saying is

Trump, his voters and Republicans are completely dismissed as nothing.

     I keep thinking that this whole thing is heading on a seriously dangerous trajectory.

 

don't forget all the talking points when it comes to allegations against anything Dem... 'debunked' is my favorite but we also have 'unproven' and 'conspiracy theories' amongst others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Albwan said:

       Something I find very troubling is the left and the media keep repeating the phrases 'undisputed' or 'uncontested' in

regards to 'facts' about what they feel Trump has done....This to me is more of their mask slipping, because what they are saying is

Trump, his voters and Republicans are completely dismissed as nothing.

     I keep thinking that this whole thing is heading on a seriously dangerous trajectory.

 

  Yes, the word smithing may well push beyond simple declarations of confidence such as with "undisputed."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Albwan said:

       Something I find very troubling is the left and the media keep repeating the phrases 'undisputed' or 'uncontested' in

regards to 'facts' about what they feel Trump has done....This to me is more of their mask slipping, because what they are saying is

Trump, his voters and Republicans are completely dismissed as nothing.

     I keep thinking that this whole thing is heading on a seriously dangerous trajectory.

 

 

They also like to use the phrase "without evidence" whenever anyone challenges the "undisputed" and "uncontested" "debunkings" of any argument they don't like. Of course, just don't ask them to prove these "undisputed" things with actual evidence...

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2019 at 5:02 PM, Foxx said:

 

right, two thirds of the complete Senate are needed to convict.

 

however.... there is a little known loophole here that not too many are aware of. only two thirds of senators in attendance at the vote is required to convict. thus, 67 is not the immovable object everyone might think. if only 75 Senators show up to vote, a mere 50 votes are required to convict. not that i think that will/would happen but, i do have a severe distrust of all things elite so....

The Impeachment Loophole No One’s Talking About

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Foxx said:


I saw another  post somewhere that if a Senator did not attend the trial, they could be arrested. ?‍♀️  That article was in reference to Bernie and Lizzy campaigning instead of attending the trial, but I assume  the same would apply to any Republicans trying to duck the trial. 

Now, I am not sure Mitch would send out the Sergeant at Arms to round up anyone, but you never know...
 

Here's an article about Harry Reid considering it:
 

</snip>
 

In rare circumstances, the majority leader can request a "live" quorum call because he actually wants all senators present for debate. If a majority of senators are not present in the chamber, the majority leader can make a motion, which if agreed to by a plurality of senators, would direct the sergeant at arms to request the presence of absent senators. Usually this works, and a majority of senators come to the floor.
 

If it doesn't work, however, that's where things get dicey. The Senate can then direct the sergeant at arms to compel — or even arrest — senators to bring them to the floor.
 

</snip>

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


I saw another  post somewhere that if a Senator did not attend the trial, they could be arrested. ?‍♀️  That article was in reference to Bernie and Lizzy campaigning instead of attending the trial, but I assume  the same would apply to any Republicans trying to duck the trial. 

Now, I am not sure Mitch would send out the Sergeant at Arms to round up anyone, but you never know...
 

Here's an article about Harry Reid considering it:
 

</snip>
 

In rare circumstances, the majority leader can request a "live" quorum call because he actually wants all senators present for debate. If a majority of senators are not present in the chamber, the majority leader can make a motion, which if agreed to by a plurality of senators, would direct the sergeant at arms to request the presence of absent senators. Usually this works, and a majority of senators come to the floor.
 

If it doesn't work, however, that's where things get dicey. The Senate can then direct the sergeant at arms to compel — or even arrest — senators to bring them to the floor.
 

</snip>

from the linked article:

...And the Senate could, in theory, exercise its power for compulsory attendance, directing the sergeant-at-arms to arrest fugitive senators and haul them back to the chamber for the vote. But such power is only used in cases where a quorum is missing—to go from, say, 49 to 51—but never from 70 to 100, making its use in such a scenario unprecedented, and likely an abuse of power. (Frumin thinks it would violate the rules.) Of course, that hasn’t stopped Mitch McConnell before. But any measure to enlist the sergeant-at-arms would require a majority of the senators who were—well, present. (See how useful this word is?) If 30 members were absent, Democrats would presumably defeat the motion to compel the missing senators’ attendance, 47-23. ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2019 at 9:00 AM, 3rdnlng said:

Trump's lawyers did send a letter about 4:30 pm to the House basically telling them to ***** off and we'll all see how it goes in a fair Senate trial. Dems are like moths drawn to the flame of impeachment. 

Sorry to tell you this, but Nancy is incapable of blinking. I mean really, she can't physically blink. She would make a great Jeff Dunham dummy though if he could get up the courage to have her sit on his lap.

 

Wouldn't it be simpler and more direct if the President's lawyer's simply sent a very short letter that says:  "***** Off"?

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Why hasn't Trump called for his own witnesses to testify? 

 

Oh that's right, they would have incriminating evidence, that's why 

 

Why should he?  If this gets to a trial in the Senate, that's when both sides will call people who are actual witnesses. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

from the linked article:

...And the Senate could, in theory, exercise its power for compulsory attendance, directing the sergeant-at-arms to arrest fugitive senators and haul them back to the chamber for the vote. But such power is only used in cases where a quorum is missing—to go from, say, 49 to 51—but never from 70 to 100, making its use in such a scenario unprecedented, and likely an abuse of power. (Frumin thinks it would violate the rules.) Of course, that hasn’t stopped Mitch McConnell before. But any measure to enlist the sergeant-at-arms would require a majority of the senators who were—well, present. (See how useful this word is?) If 30 members were absent, Democrats would presumably defeat the motion to compel the missing senators’ attendance, 47-23. ...


This  article I linked to reported when it was utilized in  the past. Obviously in the days before the outrage media and the internet. 



 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Why hasn't Trump called for his own witnesses to testify? 

 

Oh that's right, they would have incriminating evidence, that's why 

Tiberius

A self portrait of ones own brain exploding, hope all is well.  

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, I am the egg man said:

Tiberius

A self portrait of ones own brain exploding, hope all is well.  

You are a stupid idiot. Have you ever made any decent contribution to this board? No, you are just a parasite 

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

There really isn't all that much to blow up. That is a picture of what was seen under the microscope. 

Lol, I'm way smarter than you, but I don't really need to point that out

Trump supporters trying to say regular people are not that smart. Unreal 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You are a stupid idiot. Have you ever made any decent contribution to this board? No, you are just a parasite 

Lol, I'm way smarter than you, but I don't really need to point that out

LOL? I thought you saved that for dead Americans who were killed by terrorists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

LOL? I thought you saved that for dead Americans who were killed by terrorists. 

 

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

LOL? I thought you saved that for dead Americans who were killed by terrorists. 

 

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

LOL? I thought you saved that for dead Americans who were killed by terrorists. 

Lol, still repeating that lie? Trump was born from lies and you were made for each other. 

 

Lies

4 minutes ago, I am the egg man said:

Still hoping for that participation trophy for most comments in a forum ?

Wow, you are so funny, not. 

 

Go away d-bag. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...