The Senate Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[bigsly]

With the inevitable, totally partisan impeachment of Trump looming tomorrow in the House, and as the House Rules Committee even now as I post are finalizing rules for tomorrow's votes (debate length, etc), I don't think it's at all premature to now look ahead to Trump's Senate trial...

The very first wondering I have is whether, regarding the overt, monumental, political conflicts of interests they unarguably have, will Democrat hopeful presidential challengers to the charged honorably recuse themselves? I.e., how can Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar or Bernie Sanders possibly even begin to pimp themselves as impartial jurors?

 

[Fart_knocker]

The best part of all of this impeachment crap that has flooded the board, will be the tantrum Trump throws when it's all said and done, whatever the outcome happens to be.

The better question is what will be Trump's first act of revenge on the Democrats?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

With the inevitable, totally partisan impeachment of Trump looming tomorrow in the House, and as the House Rules Committee even now as I post are finalizing rules for tomorrow's votes (debate length, etc), I don't think it's at all premature to now look ahead to Trump's Senate trial...

The very first wondering I have is whether, regarding the overt, monumental, political conflicts of interests they unarguably have, will Democrat hopeful presidential challengers to the charged honorably recuse themselves? I.e., how can Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar or Bernie Sanders possibly even begin to pimp themselves as impartial jurors?

I figure they are on about even par with Graham and McConnell, maybe everyone will recuse themselves, and then what?

 

[Conager]

I figure they are on about even par with Graham and McConnell, maybe everyone will recuse themselves, and then what?

Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the concept of par or parity. It is inarguable that any eventual candidate would directly benefit from Trump's removal. It is inarguable that no candidate could obtain the Democrat nomination is they do not vote to uphold a conviction and removal.

No such direct benefit accrues to Graham or McConnell.

 

[doowdniw]

Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the concept of par or parity. It is inarguable that any eventual candidate would directly benefit from Trump's removal. It is inarguable that no candidate could obtain the Democrat nomination is they do not vote to uphold a conviction and removal.

No such direct benefit accrues to Graham or McConnell.

How about indirect benefits?

 

[bigsly]

Word is that Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is considering introducing a motion to DISMISS both Articles of Impeachment as the first action of the Senate trial, on the basis that neither Article cites a specific crime, thus neither can be legally tried. Such a motion would only require a simple Senate majority, 51 votes, to pass, compared to a two-thirds majority, 67 votes, to convict/remove.

A similar motion was introduced at the start of President Clinton's Senate trial, but was defeated.

 

[jaF0]

The Senate Obstruction Of Justice.

Fixed yer thread title.

 

[Dazzle1]

With the inevitable, totally partisan impeachment of Trump looming tomorrow in the House, and as the House Rules Committee even now as I post are finalizing rules for tomorrow's votes (debate length, etc), I don't think it's at all premature to now look ahead to Trump's Senate trial...

The very first wondering I have is whether, regarding the overt, monumental, political conflicts of interests they unarguably have, will Democrat hopeful presidential challengers to the charged honorably recuse themselves? I.e., how can Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar or Bernie Sanders possibly even begin to pimp themselves as impartial jurors?

I wish anti Trumpers would be as honest with Bill Maher.

Who admitted he would be fine with sufferings, a deep recession, country torn apart to get rid of Trump

Almost every Dem in congress is of the same mind but too dishonest to admidt it.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the concept of par or parity. It is inarguable that any eventual candidate would directly benefit from Trump's removal. It is inarguable that no candidate could obtain the Democrat nomination is they do not vote to uphold a conviction and removal.

No such direct benefit accrues to Graham or McConnell.

You are moving two steps forward. What you posted that is true, there is no benefit (now) for Graham or McConnell, in that respect since they are not running (yet) for President. However I was not implying par on a level of a presidential election, only on them being of preconceived on how they will vote.

You seem to read your own thoughts into other peoples posts, like your earlier assumption 1975 must stand for my birth year. Maybe stick to the point, not digress out into the weeds.

 

[OldJourno]

Fixed yer thread title.

Know just what you mean. Schumer was dying to introduce as witnesses two 50-year-old women, now college professors, who would have claimed they were raped by Trump during their post grad days.
No evidence, but who needs it these days?

 

[bigsly]

The Constitution for the United States of America, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:

The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

The House has constitutionally fulfilled its "sole Power" with the two Articles impeachment of President Donald J. Trump; i.e., it no longer has any constitutional "Power" whatsoever pertaining to this constitutional proceeding. Zero. Nada. None.

Yet, the longer the Speaker of the House refuses to SUBMIT to the Constitution so that the Senate may now fulfill its "sole Power", the more she proves where the Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress truly, constitutionally lies.

 

[von_Bismarck]

*Impeached President Donald J. Trump

 

[Adre]

*Impeached President Donald J. Trump

It has a pleasant ring.

 

[jaF0]

Flushed Turd has a better ring, but the Mitch n Lindsay show will block it somehow.

 

[bigsly]

Flushed Turd has a better ring, but the Mitch n Lindsay show will block it somehow.

Once the House impeaches, "it" cannot be constitutionally blocked by anyone or any way. Trump has been impeached by the House, and history has now forever recorded that irreversible fact of life.

 

[jaF0]

^^^^ Feller's got one o'them learnin' disability thingies goin' on.

Mitch Co has openly stated they will block this from going any further to flush the turd, saying they won't even pretend not to.


The only way to possibly save the country is for a handful of the retiring Senators to switch parties, killing the 'Puke Majority and dumping Mitch first.

THEN we can get on with the flushin' o' the turd.

 

[icanhelp1]

You are moving two steps forward. What you posted that is true, there is no benefit (now) for Graham or McConnell, in that respect since they are not running (yet) for President. However I was not implying par on a level of a presidential election, only on them being of preconceived on how they will vote.

You seem to read your own thoughts into other peoples posts, like your earlier assumption 1975 must stand for my birth year. Maybe stick to the point, not digress out into the weeds.

Perhaps you should be a little more precise with your thoughts. You have a tendency to litter the forum with subjective and ambiguous comments and then vigorously defend your open ended statements. Your ambiguity purposely leave you in a position to never lose an argument, where you play both sides especially if a poster proves your inaccuracies or projects a different opinion.

YOU....." Open borders are an invitation to terrorist"

ME..... " Yes it is "

YOU.... " So what are terrorist going to do,sneak in an army?

You conflated Conventional warfare with Asymmetrical { with a "chuckle" }
10 suicidal terrorist at a mall with bomb vests and AK=47s It happened in Mumbai 166 dead, you don't think this could happen in your country, just a matter of time.

I mentioned NBC THREAT! more chuckles

N= NUCLEAR ( dirty bomb or a portable device )

B= BIOLOGICAL ( a bacterial agent i.e. 'anthrax', viral i.e. 'weaponized smallpox or any deadly pathogen )

C= CHEMICAL ( any nerve agent, sarin, tabun, soman, VX { Russia used in UK )

 

[Klinkster]

The best part of all of this impeachment crap that has flooded the board, will be the tantrum Trump throws when it's all said and done, whatever the outcome happens to be.

The better question is what will be Trump's first act of revenge on the Democrats?

The best part, will be the shit-fit that all the leftists have, when this whole goat rope comes out as myself, and many have predicted.
Talk about temper tantrums.....get ready.

A better question? What will those same leftists dream up next.......Their quest for power, knows no bounds.

 

[coati]

Hmmm, that's right. There's a Senate trial coming up for the Impeached President Trump. I can't recall any other Presidents during my lifetime facing that during their first term. Seems kind of historical.

Maybe that's another reason why Greta, and not the Impeached President, was named Person of the Year by Time Magazine.

 

[icanhelp1]

Hmmm, that's right. There's a Senate trial coming up for the Impeached President Trump. I can't recall any other Presidents during my lifetime facing that during their first term. Seems kind of historical.

Maybe that's another reason why Greta, and not the Impeached President, was named Person of the Year by Time Magazine.

Kind of early to take a victory lap, isn't it? You might have to continue running in circles till 2024 before you get a win. SWAMP PRINCESS made a big mistake!

 

[Klinkster]

Hmmm, that's right. There's a Senate trial coming up for the Impeached President Trump. I can't recall any other Presidents during my lifetime facing that during their first term. Seems kind of historical.

Maybe that's another reason why Greta, and not the Impeached President, was named Person of the Year by Time Magazine.

Is it?

Pelosi is hangin' on, and sending nothing to the Senate.
How long will she do that?

It was a rush to 'save our democracy' in the house....(even though we aren't a democracy).....until they voted to impeach.
Now.....not so much.

"As long as it takes."

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...ect-dem-shocks-give-trump-fair-trial-and-hang

Please explain this.

 

[bigsly]

^^^^ Feller's got one o'them learnin' disability thingies goin' on.

Mitch Co has openly stated they will block this from going any further to flush the turd, saying they won't even pretend not to.

Just like when you employed "it" previously, now you're using "this" to represent impeachment. Again: impeachment can't go any further, and nothing can block "it" or "this". It's done. Period. Fini.

Do not project onto me your obvious difficultly in grasping the proper words with which to express all those misfiring synapse connections in your sadly muddled mind.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Know just what you mean. Schumer was dying to introduce as witnesses two 50-year-old women, now college professors, who would have claimed they were raped by Trump during their post grad days.
No evidence, but who needs it these days?

And the women would give none except the vaguest details, so their lies would have been impossible to disprove.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Perhaps you should be a little more precise with your thoughts.

The above is very true, especially if the post are evening ones, since I am half in the bag then.

You have a tendency to litter the forum with subjective and ambiguous comments and then vigorously defend your open ended statements. Your ambiguity purposely leave you in a position to never lose an argument, where you play both sides especially if a poster proves your inaccuracies or projects a different opinion.

So you never took part in a debate class in high school I guess.

YOU....." Open borders are an invitation to terrorist"

ME..... " Yes it is "

YOU.... " So what are terrorist going to do,sneak in an army?

It is a pun, if you really think about it.

You conflated Conventional warfare with Asymmetrical { with a "chuckle" }

Most likely won't be the last time I do it either.

10 suicidal terrorist at a mall with bomb vests and AK=47s It happened in Mumbai 166 dead, you don't think this could happen in your country, just a matter of time.

Anything is possible, but I suspect the odds of it occurring in the US a much higher than Canada.

I mentioned NBC THREAT! more chuckles

N= NUCLEAR ( dirty bomb or a portable device )

B= BIOLOGICAL ( a bacterial agent i.e. 'anthrax', viral i.e. 'weaponized smallpox or any deadly pathogen )

C= CHEMICAL ( any nerve agent, sarin, tabun, soman, VX { Russia used in UK )

Not really sure what you are implying above, but thanks for the chuckles. I am trying to induce *chuckles* into every day chat, part of my reason for being here...

 

[icanhelp1]

The above is very true, especially if the post are evening ones, since I am half in the bag then.

LOL Have one for me!

So you never took part in a debate class in high school I guess.

No! I was in college prep! / science and math rather than debate.

It is a pun, if you really think about it.

If you say so

Most likely won't be the last time I do it either.

Fair enough!


Anything is possible, but I suspect the odds of it occurring in the US a much higher than Canada.

Only takes once if let your guard

Not really sure what you are implying above, but thanks for the chuckles. I am trying to induce *chuckles* into every day chat, part of my reason for being here...

Chuckles means to make light of a serious subject, condescending, not conducive to having a debate.

But by all means have a good time, perhaps I take it too seriously! Having a military background along with many other posters here, there's some real evil out there and are looking to kill us, as many of us as possible, but I digress. Nothing like a good old fashion BLACK RUSSIAN,/ I'M SURE SOME FUCKING IDIOT WILL TAKE THAT AS A RACIAL SLUR!!