-
Features
Don't Do It, Nancy!!
- Thread starter Elixir
- Start date
Arctish
Centimillionaire
Because both would involve lying under oath and there's a chance centrist Republicans would draw the line at that.
It's funny that you think there's a chance of some Republicans drawing a line.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Yeah. They've haven't even shown interest in striking two rocks together. They remind me of Texas farmers, republicans, paying charlatans to bring rain during droughts. They are known as those pointing at those they think responsible, hanging them, then pointing to the heavens for Gwad's salivation and mastication.
Interestingly they are the ones who invented hanging by putting a rope around the neck of the accused, throwing him out of the bed of the truck, then then gunning their '34 ford and dragging him behind until his body falls off. Didn't the judge dismiss the case because it was done just as a joke.
Interestingly they are the ones who invented hanging by putting a rope around the neck of the accused, throwing him out of the bed of the truck, then then gunning their '34 ford and dragging him behind until his body falls off. Didn't the judge dismiss the case because it was done just as a joke.
I think the argument to proceed as quickly as practical is that the US president is a clear and present danger to the US democracy. Anything else undermines the severity of his actions, in my opinion.
What I do not understand is the calculus that election timing is meaningful in any way. one can remove a president before, during, or after an election... well, not after if he loses.
What I do not understand is the calculus that election timing is meaningful in any way. one can remove a president before, during, or after an election... well, not after if he loses.
Why not? If they hold an impeachment trial in November 2020, they could kick him out of office then and have Whats-His-Name finish out the term.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 20,767
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Eh. There's talk about Republicans privately supporting impeachment and detesting/being extremely worried about Trump.
A secret vote would help provide cover. Of course, if you are a person of integrity and support the Constitution, you maybe feel that those are enough cover.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 20,767
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
If he's re-elected, then we'd get 4 years of Pence. Nobody wants that. I honestly believe that Trump chose or allowed Pence as his VP solely as insurance against impeachment.
Elixir
Made in America
I think that letting him crow about his innocence with the blessing of a near-unanimous Republican acquittal does more damage. To Arctish - he's NEVER going to say anything under oath. Why should he when he can tweet unlimited lies to his droolers, and they'll believe him? Remember how loudly he declared that Mueller had totally exonerated him? His idiot base still repeats that as if it was a sworn statement. And that was done with the concurrence of ONE corrupt AG. If he has 53 Republicans echoing his refrain, he'll probably get re-elected.
Yeah, Trump may totally disable the entire electoral system by next November, but he'll do it even more easily upon acquittal. The repugs' own constutional scholar recommends taking more time, doing a thorough examination of all the facts.
What Nancy should do right now, today, is tell Cheato flat out that if the House doesn't get access to the subpoenaed documents and personnel by noon on Friday 10/23/2020, they're holding a vote one week later.
That would give the Cheato cabal cause for pause about withholding everything, keep the whole thing on page 1 indefinitely, disarm the "rush to judgment" accusations and IMO, provide the best chance for an historical removal by impeachment. (Lame duck Senators and some others would almost certainly vote for removal after he loses the election, just so history would record them as one of the ones who "stood up".)
Most importantly, this tactic will afford Democrats the best chance of winning the election.
Even if he's a lame duck at the time it would serve as a warning to the next self-interested moron who thinks it would be fun to get rich by being President.
Wait. Is anyone saying that it is even possible that Trump will not testify at his own hearing without invoking the 5th amendment? Can he even invoke the 5th during this type of trial? How is that even possible?
Elixir
Made in America
Of course he won't testify. His lifespan under cross examination without self contradiction would rival that of a lit match.
Oh I agree that he certainly won't WANT to. "How on Earth can it be made so", was my question.. but google answered it and I edited this post...
https://newrepublic.com/article/155742/come-testify-donald-trump
It would actually be UNUSUAL for a president to give testimony to Congress on any matter, especially their own impeachment. However, it has happened 3 times in the past 230-whatever years. Fun read, that link.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
IIRC, that was the point of Paula Jones, Ken Starr etc - civil litigation against potus which resulted in sworn testimony(and an ambush).
Arctish
Centimillionaire
Murkowski has, repeatedly.
I think there are some who'd be willing to convict if he lies to the Senate Judiciary Committee while under oath, which we all know he'll do if he testifies. The pro-Trump team are barely keeping him stifled as it is.
Disagree. It would take him longer than that to actually say anything meaningful.
Elixir
Made in America
Maybe... I guess milliseconds matter.
But he won't testify under oath. Again I ask - WHY SHOULD HE? His idiot followers aren't interested in any steenkin' oaths - all Cheato has to do is tell them the sky is green in a tweet, and it becomes gospel TROOF.