Page 74 of 117 FirstFirst ... 2464727374757684 ... LastLast
Results 731 to 740 of 1166

Thread: Impeachment?

  1. #731
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,869
    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”.

  2. #732
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    10,265
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    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.
    So you don't think the evidence we've seen so far warrants impeachment and removal?

  3. #733
    Senior Member kib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Southeast Arizona
    Posts
    2,590
    ... 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.

  4. #734
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,869
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    So you don't think the evidence we've seen so far warrants impeachment and removal?
    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.

    My preference, short of a much more extreme situation than this one, is to leave the decision to the voters.

  5. #735
    Senior Member kib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Southeast Arizona
    Posts
    2,590
    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?

  6. #736
    Senior Member bae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Offshore
    Posts
    11,969
    Quote Originally Posted by kib View Post
    I know this is naive, but is there a reason we don't turn over impeachment hearings solely to the Supreme Court?
    You'd have to change the Constitution for that.

  7. #737
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    27,794
    Quote Originally Posted by kib View Post
    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?
    Gosh, you (and Donald Trump) are just not lawyers now, are you? You two are not “law trained.”

    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.

  8. #738
    Senior Member Teacher Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    12,889
    She is a awesome justice and I hope she lives long enough to see Trump gone.

  9. #739
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    15,489
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    So you don't think the evidence we've seen so far warrants impeachment and removal?
    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.
    (Why are we allowing Trump et al to stonewall? Remember Susan McDougall? There's that double standard again.)

  10. #740
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    15,489
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    ...
    I see the process continuing with the same level of dignity as recent Supreme Court “job interviews”.
    Yeah--Kavanaugh blubbering and blathering about beer was pretty pathetic.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •