Will Impeachment End...

[One Bad Pig]

I don't have time to reread the thread for you. Believe me or don't that it was relevant to what I was responding to.

I reread the thread already. Not only was it not relevant to the discussion, the rules you quoted (from "Google" ) were for the Senate punishing one of their own, not the President.

[DivineOb]

I reread the thread already. Not only was it not relevant to the discussion,

The claim was that censure required 2/3s. Hence my response.

the rules you quoted (from "Google" ) were for the Senate punishing one of their own, not the President.

Are you saying it requires more than a majority of members to censure the president? Based on what?

[rogue06]

The claim was that censure required 2/3s. Hence my response.

Citation please.

[One Bad Pig]

The claim was that censure required 2/3s. Hence my response.

There was no such claim.

Are you saying it requires more than a majority of members to censure the president? Based on what?

I'm saying that if you're going to cite the rules, it helps to cite ones which directly apply. According to the Congressional Research Service:

Source: CRS

In the Senate, a Member could make a unanimous consent request to consider a censure
resolution at the time it was submitted. If any Senator objected to this procedure, consideration of
the resolution would effectively be blocked.19
A Senator might instead submit the resolution for it to be referred to committee in the usual way.
The Senate committee might then report the censure resolution, allowing the measure to be called
up on the floor by unanimous consent or by debatable motion.20 In either case, the resolution and
any preamble therein would each be separately debatable and amendable, including by nongermane amendment.
If a Senator introduces an amendment that contains censorious language or attempts to alter a
resolution of censure, that amendment would also be subject to debate. As a result, without
unanimous consent, one or more cloture processes, requiring supermajority vote thresholds, might
be necessary in order to reach a final vote on censure language in the Senate.

© Copyright Original Source

(page 4)

Effectively, it would take 60 Senators voting for a resolution of censure (to pass cloture).

[seer]

Trump Job Approval at Personal Best 49%

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- President Donald Trump's job approval rating has risen to 49%, his highest in Gallup polling since he took office in 2017.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/284156/...onal-best.aspx

[Cow Poke]

There was no such claim.

I'm saying that if you're going to cite the rules, it helps to cite ones which directly apply. According to the Congressional Research Service:

Source: CRS

In the Senate, a Member could make a unanimous consent request to consider a censure
resolution at the time it was submitted. If any Senator objected to this procedure, consideration of
the resolution would effectively be blocked.19
A Senator might instead submit the resolution for it to be referred to committee in the usual way.
The Senate committee might then report the censure resolution, allowing the measure to be called
up on the floor by unanimous consent or by debatable motion.20 In either case, the resolution and
any preamble therein would each be separately debatable and amendable, including by nongermane amendment.
If a Senator introduces an amendment that contains censorious language or attempts to alter a
resolution of censure, that amendment would also be subject to debate. As a result, without
unanimous consent, one or more cloture processes, requiring supermajority vote thresholds, might
be necessary in order to reach a final vote on censure language in the Senate.

© Copyright Original Source

(page 4)

Effectively, it would take 60 Senators voting for a resolution of censure (to pass cloture).

You can be such a policy wonk!

[rogue06]

Trump Job Approval at Personal Best 49%

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- President Donald Trump's job approval rating has risen to 49%, his highest in Gallup polling since he took office in 2017.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/284156/...onal-best.aspx

And up 10 points since October.

I hope Trump has put Schiff on his Christmas card list.

[One Bad Pig]

You can be such a policy wonk!

Nah. I just appear to have better Google-fu.

[rogue06]

Nah. I just appear to have better Google-fu.

00000000000000ab000-00aaai.jpg

[Sparko]

I know you're not as dumb as that, Sparko. The documentary evidence and witness testimony could have cleared up any doubt and erased any rationalizations the republicans could use to cover-up the truth from the American people, and the republicans knew it. That's why they all voted against new evidence, they didn't want you, their constituents to see the facts, or that they were covering for the president. The question is, why didn't you want to see it, and the answer to that I think we all, including you, already know.

But the evidence they had at the hearing was "overwhelming" Jimmy. Why did they need more? And if they have more that they are going to leak, then why didn't they use it in the hearing and in their presentation to the Senate at the trial?

[Sparko]

If Trump gets reelected then this whole thing is going down in history as a sham impeachment which the American People rejected.

[Watermelon]

If Trump gets reelected then this whole thing is going down in history as a sham impeachment which the American People rejected.

If Trump loses 2020 then Schiff will be right that history will not be kind to Trump. Schiff has made himself a viable future presidential candidate with that performance and if Trump wins 2020 then I believe Schiff will run and win 2024. The man has a bright future.

[Mountain Man]

If Trump loses 2020 then Schiff will be right that history will not be kind to Trump. Schiff has made himself a viable future presidential candidate with that performance and if Trump wins 2020 then I believe Schiff will run and win 2024. The man has a bright future.

This is another textbook example of my theorem that it is impossible to tell the difference between sarcasm and liberal delusion.

[Watermelon]

This is another textbook example of my theorem that it is impossible to tell the difference between sarcasm and liberal delusion.

I’m rubber you’re glue?

Schiff is very popular with the democrats and extremely despised by republicans. Despite what you think, he did a good job evidenced by Sen Alexander’s comments and another rep senator who said that Sen Alexander spoke for many of us. I’d say he overachieved seeing how confident republicans were that the senate would immediately dismiss.

[Cow Poke]

If Trump loses 2020 then Schiff will be right that history will not be kind to Trump. Schiff has made himself a viable future presidential candidate with that performance and if Trump wins 2020 then I believe Schiff will run and win 2024. The man has a bright future.

You forgot the sarcasm tags. [ sarcasm ] and [ /sarcasm ]

Without the spaces, of course.