Printable View
It appears that the Senate acting as the jury will be every bit as “objective” as the House acting as the grand jury that handed down the indictment.
I see the process continuing with the same level of dignity as recent Supreme Court “job interviews”.
So you don't think the evidence we've seen so far warrants impeachment and removal?Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
... sigh. maybe by publicly announcing he has no intention of upholding the law, McConnell is just laying cards on the table. It just seemed to represent a new low in partisanship on a bar that's already too low to limbo under - for either side.
Did you happen to catch a little soundbite the other day? Some reporter asked Trump if he wanted the hearing to be long and thorough or quick and over, and he murmured, more or less sotto voce, "I can do whatever I want", and then, in his recognizable Hale And Hearty 'Here's The Story You Should Believe Today, BELIEVE ME' voice, said he wants it as long as it has to be to bring out all the facts. It was truly bizarre, like his real self just had to tell the truth before his Public Persona could take over.
Honestly, I’m not sure whether or not it rises to that level. If it does, I think most modern presidents could have been removed for various misdemeanors. It’s hard for me to imagine any recent president not guilty of obstruction of congress at some time or other, for instance. My belief that in this case, and probably Clinton’s the process has been somewhat trivialized for partisan purposes. It has become more political than legal in character. One side can talk about coordinating with the White House. The other has members who ran for office on an “Impeach the MFer” platform. There are no clean hands here.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
My preference, short of a much more extreme situation than this one, is to leave the decision to the voters.
I know this is naive, but is there a reason we don't turn over impeachment hearings solely to the Supreme Court? Aren't they elected for life precisely because that should grant them the ability to be impartial? Wouldn't this be about the most important place imaginable for an impartial ear?
You'd have to change the Constitution for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by kib
Gosh, you (and Donald Trump) are just not lawyers now, are you? You two are not “law trained.”Quote:
Originally Posted by kib
This was Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s response today when President Trump also inquired about involving the Supreme Court.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...er/2679145001/
But the real answer is that our constitution is very clear how impeachment is handled:
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:
The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
She is a awesome justice and I hope she lives long enough to see Trump gone.
Since we're allowing people to ignore subpoenas, evidence is limited--though I think what has been presented by the witnesses so far is convincing.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
(Why are we allowing Trump et al to stonewall? Remember Susan McDougall? There's that double standard again.)
Yeah--Kavanaugh blubbering and blathering about beer was pretty pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL