No Senate Impeachment Trial Until Chuck Schumer Gives Nancy Pelosi the Green Light.

a reply to: ketsuko

Good point! What Pelosi is doing is the classic example of a quid quo pro.

originally posted by: drewlander

originally posted by: neo96

The Senate has the SOLE POWER to try impeachments.

Pelosi can go pound sand.

She can't shake down the senate.

GOP has 23 seats up in senate for 2020. She wants to drag this out until then hoping they pick up a bunch of seats and secure the vote. And drag Trumps name through the mud during the presidential election of course.

Makes no sense. If they manage to take the Senate and get enough seats to impeach - 67 - then Trump won;t be President anyway. He'll have lost the election. I can't see any circumstance where he wins and loses the Senate that big.

This is all a little more simple.
Democrats sh*t the bed and they can't figure a way out of it, so they're just digging themselves into a deeper hole. Their tactics are very much in common with what they always do. Play by their own rules and shred the Constitution.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: kwakakev

Until President Trump is acquitted by the Senate, the only label he'll wear is "INDICTED".

Actually, he will ALWAYS wear the label "INDICTED" and be part of that exclusive happy crew.

Exactly. Democrats will be the only party in history to ever use impeachment as a political weapon. It's disgusting how far they have sunk.

I'm not quite certain that is the takeaway, but thanks for playing.
On a related subject, do you think Trump can spell 'asterisk'?

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: kwakakev

Until President Trump is acquitted by the Senate, the only label he'll wear is "INDICTED".

Actually, he will ALWAYS wear the label "INDICTED" and be part of that exclusive happy crew.

Exactly. Democrats will be the only party in history to ever use impeachment as a political weapon. It's disgusting how far they have sunk.

I'm not quite certain that is the takeaway, but thanks for playing.
On a related subject, do you think Trump can spell 'asterisk'?

Unless its a convicted impeachment,no he will not have to spell asterisk. We are a nation of innocent till proven guilty,and the House can only Indict/Impeach him as long as it takes the senate to say not guilty. If they persist afetr Trump can sue them for liable and slander.

originally posted by: misskat1
This is all about strategy, they will hold these articles until Durhams report is due out

There will be no Durham report - well, at least not until after the indictments and prosecutions.

Durham is a Prosecutor, not an impotent investigator with extremely limited jurisdiction.

McConnell gets it 100% correct.
I know some partisans will refuse to accept the truth, but the truth remains.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: kwakakev

Until President Trump is acquitted by the Senate, the only label he'll wear is "INDICTED".

Actually, he will ALWAYS wear the label "INDICTED" and be part of that exclusive happy crew.

Exactly. Democrats will be the only party in history to ever use impeachment as a political weapon. It's disgusting how far they have sunk.

I'm not quite certain that is the takeaway, but thanks for playing.
On a related subject, do you think Trump can spell 'asterisk'?

Presidential Election 2020 : Winner , Donald J Trump*
*because the Democrats sh*t the bed, had a hissy fit and impeached based on zero evidence in the lead in to election year.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: carewemust

I like Nancy Pelosi. I think she's done a good job.

I'm sure you like turtles as well..

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: misskat1
This is all about strategy, they will hold these articles until Durhams report is due out

There will be no Durham report - well, at least not until after the indictments and prosecutions.

Durham is a Prosecutor, not an impotent investigator with extremely limited jurisdiction.

Even supposedly well-informed media people don't quite "get it" yet. Tonight, FoxNew's Martha McCallum asked Attorney General Barr, "Approximately when will Prosecutor John Durham issue his report?

Barr smirked and replied, "Not for many months, Martha."

ON TOPIC

Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) met with Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Thursday afternoon to discuss terms for the Senate Impeachment Trial.

After 20 minutes, they emerged, said they're at an impasse, then flew home for Christmas.

www.politico.com...

Two more end runs around precedent are surfacing

1) Removal of some Republican Senators rights to vote - Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said, in response to a question relating to Republican Senators, that bias is grounds for removal from the process. If the Democrats could remove Republicans, they would need to remove about 28 to give themselves the super majority needed.

Obviously this sounds utterly crazy and tyrannical, but no more so that the impeachment in the House.

More likely avenue...
2) Democrats are calling on Chief Justice Roberts to break with precedent and take more active role in the proceedings, making McConnell accept Democrat demands on rules and witnesses. They accept that Roberts could be over ruled by a majority vote - but they themslevs might have the majority with 4 or 5 Romney types.

I think this might be the angle - getting a Romney coalition to give them a simple majority and then using Roberts to take full control of the proceedings to force votes on the floor, so THEY can run it just like they did in the House.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: kwakakev

Until President Trump is acquitted by the Senate, the only label he'll wear is "INDICTED".

Actually, he will ALWAYS wear the label "INDICTED" and be part of that exclusive happy crew.

Exactly. Democrats will be the only party in history to ever use impeachment as a political weapon. It's disgusting how far they have sunk.

I'm not quite certain that is the takeaway, but thanks for playing.
On a related subject, do you think Trump can spell 'asterisk'?

Unless its a convicted impeachment,no he will not have to spell asterisk. We are a nation of innocent till proven guilty,and the House can only Indict/Impeach him as long as it takes the senate to say not guilty. If they persist afetr Trump can sue them for liable and slander.

Tell all that to his ignoble predecessors Johnson, Nixon and Clinton.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: kwakakev

Until President Trump is acquitted by the Senate, the only label he'll wear is "INDICTED".

Actually, he will ALWAYS wear the label "INDICTED" and be part of that exclusive happy crew.

Exactly. Democrats will be the only party in history to ever use impeachment as a political weapon. It's disgusting how far they have sunk.

I'm not quite certain that is the takeaway, but thanks for playing.
On a related subject, do you think Trump can spell 'asterisk'?

Unless its a convicted impeachment,no he will not have to spell asterisk. We are a nation of innocent till proven guilty,and the House can only Indict/Impeach him as long as it takes the senate to say not guilty. If they persist afetr Trump can sue them for liable and slander.

Tell all that to his ignoble predecessors Johnson, Nixon and Clinton.

Which one of them was voted down party lines?
Which one of them was impeached for not following Congress demands when the courts have told Congress they are not entitled to those demands?

Democrats literally impeached Trump for blocking a witness from testifying that the courts have also blocked from testifying.

The federal judge who ordered former White House counsel Donald McGahn to appear before Congress is temporarily delaying the effect of her ruling.

time.com...

It’s also expected to win a longer-term stay of Jackson’s decision through the next month considering that the appellate court did just schedule arguments that would be of little importance if McGahn had already been required to appear.

www.politico.com...
If that does not make you sick, then you are the sickness.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
Exactly. Democrats will be the only party in history to ever use impeachment as a political weapon. It's disgusting how far they have sunk.

I'm not quite certain that is the takeaway, but thanks for playing.
On a related subject, do you think Trump can spell 'asterisk'?
If you are not certain that is the takeaway then it may be you whose intellect should be questioned, not Trump's.

originally posted by: UKTruth
1) Removal of some Republican Senators rights to vote - Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said, in response to a question relating to Republican Senators, that bias is grounds for removal from the process. If the Democrats could remove Republicans, they would need to remove about 28 to give themselves the super majority needed.

Link please? This sounds insane. Was this something she said recently, with respect to the current impeachment process?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
If you are not certain that is the takeaway then it may be you whose intellect should be questioned, not Trump's.

Only in the echo chamber, my friend. Only in the echo chamber.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: UKTruth
1) Removal of some Republican Senators rights to vote - Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said, in response to a question relating to Republican Senators, that bias is grounds for removal from the process. If the Democrats could remove Republicans, they would need to remove about 28 to give themselves the super majority needed.

Link please? This sounds insane. Was this something she said recently, with respect to the current impeachment process?

Yes, during a BBC interview in relation to the impeachment.
Will try and find the article/ video.

In the conversation, she also implied that senators who display bias should be disqualified from acting as jurors in the trial.

There was criticism over the weekend of Mitch McConnell, who leads the Republican party in the Senate, for saying an acquittal was a foregone conclusion.

When asked about senators making up their minds before the trial, the Supreme Court Justice said: "Well if a judge said that, a judge would be disqualified from sitting on the case."

www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: UKTruth

if they try this route it opens up the HOUSE's decision to impeach as well since they were already of a mind to do it then.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: UKTruth

if they try this route it opens up the HOUSE's decision to impeach as well since they were already of a mind to do it then.

I very much doubt they will try it, but it's pretty irresponsible for Ginsburg to be wading in on the subject.
Perhaps is anything goes to the SC, she recuse herself.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: UKTruth
1) Removal of some Republican Senators rights to vote - Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said, in response to a question relating to Republican Senators, that bias is grounds for removal from the process. If the Democrats could remove Republicans, they would need to remove about 28 to give themselves the super majority needed.

Link please? This sounds insane. Was this something she said recently, with respect to the current impeachment process?

Yes, during a BBC interview in relation to the impeachment.
Will try and find the article/ video.

In the conversation, she also implied that senators who display bias should be disqualified from acting as jurors in the trial.

There was criticism over the weekend of Mitch McConnell, who leads the Republican party in the Senate, for saying an acquittal was a foregone conclusion.

When asked about senators making up their minds before the trial, the Supreme Court Justice said: "Well if a judge said that, a judge would be disqualified from sitting on the case."

www.bbc.co.uk...

Does the same apply to the House? Can we say the vote is illegitimate due to bias?

The common-sense quotient of the Mainstream Media keeps shrinking. They'll soon be dumber than rocks.

As 2020 begins, they say that Pelosi and McConnell are in a "Stand Off" over Impeachment in the Senate.

Source: www.bloomberg.com...

If the Media had decent attention spans, they would remember Senator McConnell saying 2 week ago that he is in no hurry to begin an impeachment trial. The Senate wants to continue focusing on approving Conservative Judges for the nation's court systems. As far as he is concerned, Speaker Pelosi can keep her weak impeachment articles FOREVER.

That Doesn't sound like a "Stand Off" to me. How about you, ATS?