Page 15 of 110 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 1095

Thread: The Impeachment Trial

  1. #141
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    313
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Not everything "improper" rises to the level of an impeachable offense.
    Even if there are TONS of evidence that somebody committed the "improper" act, doesn't make it more impeachable.

    Sometimes, "improper" conduct deserves a scolding, or a censure, or perhaps the loss of a subsequent election.
    Doesn’t the house decide whether an ‘improper’ act is impeachable?

  2. #142
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    60,424
    Amen (Given)
    13032
    Amen (Received)
    27576
    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    Doesn’t the house decide whether an ‘improper’ act is impeachable?
    Sure - they have sole authority over that process. The Senate has sole authority to say, "uh, slow your roll - you may think that's impeachable, but we don't think it's cause for removal".

    The House, however, tends to think they have power, somehow, to control what the Senate does.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  3. #143
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,002
    Amen (Given)
    1957
    Amen (Received)
    1608
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Sure - they have sole authority over that process. The Senate has sole authority to say, "uh, slow your roll - you may think that's impeachable, but we don't think it's cause for removal".

    The House, however, tends to think they have power, somehow, to control what the Senate does.
    No the House doesn"t, they know just as you do that the Senate has sole power over the trial. That doesn't mean that the minority party in the Senate can't negotiate or pressure the majority into having a fair trial with relevant evidence. If they as a majority insist on violating their oath to be an impartial jury, that's on them, they can do that, but, in this very important case, probably not without electoral consequences for some of their members, and long term consequences for the party as a whole.

  4. #144
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    313
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Sure - they have sole authority over that process. The Senate has sole authority to say, "uh, slow your roll - you may think that's impeachable, but we don't think it's cause for removal".

    The House, however, tends to think they have power, somehow, to control what the Senate does.
    I agree that the house decides whether something is impeachable and the senate decides whether that’s removable.
    If the senate doesn’t remove then what trump did is still impeachable but not removable.

    However, the house has concluded that trump attempted to gain an advantage on the 2020 election by withholding aid. Claiming that action is not removable is ridiculous so the senate is denying the House conclusion.

    Is there an argument that the house, while still not having a say in whether an action is removable or not, should have some say if their conclusion is being challenged?

  5. #145
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    313
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    I agree that the house decides whether something is impeachable and the senate decides whether that’s removable.
    If the senate doesn’t remove then what trump did is still impeachable but not removable.

    However, the house has concluded that trump attempted to gain an advantage on the 2020 election by withholding aid. Claiming that action is not removable is ridiculous so the senate is denying the House conclusion.

    Is there an argument that the house, while still not having a say in whether an action is removable or not, should have some say if their conclusion is being challenged?
    Just to clarify I’m saying that if the senate trial is about whether the house decision is cause for removal or not then I agree the house has no say.

    However if the senate trial is about whether the house decision is questionable then shouldn’t the house have a right to say ‘ok we gave you our evidence but if you’re still not convinced then let us present more evidence’?

  6. #146
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    60,424
    Amen (Given)
    13032
    Amen (Received)
    27576
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    No the House doesn"t,
    Doesn't what?

    they know just as you do that the Senate has sole power over the trial.
    Then they should stop acting like they're still in charge.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  7. #147
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    60,424
    Amen (Given)
    13032
    Amen (Received)
    27576
    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    Just to clarify I’m saying that if the senate trial is about whether the house decision is cause for removal or not then I agree the house has no say.
    The House Managers are guests in the Senate. Their part was complete, as to how the impeachment process was run. Now it's up to the Senate where to go from there.

    However if the senate trial is about whether the house decision is questionable then shouldn’t the house have a right to say ‘ok we gave you our evidence but if you’re still not convinced then let us present more evidence’?
    That amounts to the House getting a "do-over". It should be expected that they do their due-diligence and present their best case, especially since they have been crowing about how "overwhelming" it is.

    What the House can do is start another investigation, and present NEW Articles of Impeachment. Nothing prohibits them from doing that.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  8. #148
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,085
    Amen (Given)
    6112
    Amen (Received)
    7485
    Whoops... Democrats may have stepped in it. As part of the arguments today, House manager Sylvia Garcia introduced into evidence the actions of both Joe and Hunter, saying that neither of them did anything wrong, and therefore any request by President Trump to have them investigated was illegitimate. This means that the Biden's are now fair game if the defense wants to call them as witnesses to counter the prosecution's claims.

    https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020...-senate-trial/
    Last edited by Mountain Man; 01-23-2020 at 06:52 PM.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  9. Amen NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  10. #149
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    313
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    The House Managers are guests in the Senate. Their part was complete, as to how the impeachment process was run. Now it's up to the Senate where to go from there.



    That amounts to the House getting a "do-over". It should be expected that they do their due-diligence and present their best case, especially since they have been crowing about how "overwhelming" it is.

    What the House can do is start another investigation, and present NEW Articles of Impeachment. Nothing prohibits them from doing that.
    I’m sure they will. The evidence is overwhelming for the majority of the house, the legal community and roughly half the population. However it’s also no secret that more evidence is available that may or may not convince others. The only thing preventing the senate from hearing more evidence seems to be vindictiveness despite the polls showing 70% of the population wanting to hear it.

  11. #150
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    313
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Whoops... Democrats may have stepped in it. As part of the arguments today, House manager Sylvia Garcia introduced into evidence the actions of both Joe and Hunter, saying that neither of them did anything wrong, and therefore any request by President Trump to have them investigated was illegitimate. This means that the Biden's are now fair game if the defense wants to call them as witnesses to counter the prosecution's claims.

    https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020...-senate-trial/
    I think the vast majority of people don’t care if they are called to testify despite their relevance to proceedings being questionable at best. The counter to that claim would be a national security advisor stating the justification for investigating the Bidens were warranted not trying to get a confession out of Hunter or Joe.

    However, the democrats views seem to be that if the Bidens had been corrupt then they should face the consequences.

Posting Permissions

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