DOH!Originally Posted by iris lilies
DOH!
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Spare me the sanctimonious blather.
Cops on the street are hardly responsible for a municipality’s policy of raising revenue by traffic fines. That is policy put into place by the (largely) Democratic council of Ferguson and all surrounding municipalities just like them.
If that is HUGE it is easy enough to vote the baxtxxds out.
Susan McDougal said she refused to answer questions in the Whitewater trial because she feared being charged with perjury if she told the truth because her ex-husband had previously given false testimony designed to protect Bill Clinton which was accepted as truth. That trial had more to do with illegal financial dealings than sex as I recall.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
It actually seems like a reasonable move of political one upmanship to me. It would be a gamble to expedite witness testimony denied by the White House in a process faster than the lengthy and cumbersome court systems. I doubt it would come to it, but I could see an indefinite delay based on it not being an impartial trial, which would at least deny Donald legal exoneration and save face for the dems.
You keep saying murder. The County DA concluded it wasn’t murder. The federal investigation concluded there was no civil rights violation.
I think you need to back up your assertions with more than “because America”.
I don’t think Mitch McConnell would be all that unhappy with a delay of any length. Refusing to play the game because you don’t like the rules after rushing the House process would seem to me to be fairly damaging for the a Democrats.
I agree because I think it shows that the entire process was more about politics than the sad, solemn and desperate attempt to uphold the constitution as the Democrats have been coached to present it.
As an aside, it's been fun watching Democrats on TV looking all doe eyed and sad at being forced to do something they'd rather not have forced upon them.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Refusing to play the game because the senate majority leader has plainly stated that he doesn't intend to hold a fair trial would seem to me to be what people who care about their oath of office would do.
I have trouble imagining that after the last few years there is a single member of the Senate (or the House) who could accurately be called an “impartial juror” at this point. It’s hard to see how any of them would survive a normal jury selection process.
I also have trouble understanding what legitimate constitutional authority the Speaker of the House can exercise over Senate rules.
If she believes she can leverage the Senate by not doing something they would prefer she not do anyway, she would seem to have a faulty understanding of the concept of extortion.
It’s hard for me to believe there is a single Senator from either party who does not already know how he or she will be voting, whether that occurs next week or next year.
Really? The worst thing that could happen would be a duplication of the Democrats flat out refusal to provide a single guilty vote during the Clinton trial. No, this is politics but this time it's an effort to place the Senate in a bad light for the upcoming election. It won't work.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote