From Sundance in the CTH article posted by drcrnum, supra.

Quote:

---

The Democrats will argue their 2020 candidates cannot spend all this time on a Senate trial. the media will be sympathetic.. Because the constitution is ambiguous to the construct. and intentionally differential to the size of the Senate. the democrat approach will be to empanel a bipartisan jury of an unknown number of Senators to sit for the trial "under oath and affirmation."

There is nothing in the constitution that would stop the Senate from assembling a jury of 10 republican senators and 10 democrat senators. It would then require "two-thirds" or thirteen for a conviction. Or the jury could be 40 or (fill_in_blank).

This type of a senate construct is what the left has been hinting about in their discussions. This is what Lawfare has been discussing since they successfully gained the Nixon Impeachment Roadmap during their lawsuit a few months ago.

---

IIRC, in the Alcee Hastings case (impeached federal judge (bribery) and now sitting Congressman on House Rules Committee) his Senate trial was by a panel and not the full Senate. Hastings sued claiming that his trial and subsequent removal was thus unConstitutional.

In an unrelated (and somewhat dissimilar case*) SCOTUS ruled that federal courts do not have authority under separation of powers to interfere with Senate rules on impeachment trials. And the other case effectively rendered Hasting's case moot.

Under such precedent, there would appear to be no legal impediment to McConnell's designating such an impeachment panel that accurately represents the party make-up of the full Senate. Giving the edge to Republican Senators. Unseemly? Perhaps but not illegal nor a matter for federal courts to interfere under Supreme Court precedent.

For those wanting to know more, see Judge Walter Nixon's case, Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S, 224 (1993)

*For background, Judge Nixon was convicted for his crimes, while Hastings was not. But the only reason Hastings was not convicted was because his co-conspirator in the bribery scheme went to jail (twice) instead of testifying at either Hastings criminal trial or his impeachment trial. That witness, William Borders, was later pardoned by Bill Clinton.

I am not saying McConnell should or would do that as the potential political price would be quite high but I am not seeing a legal precedent that says he definitively cannot.

If someone else has seen such a legal impediment by all means please correct me.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1190077852680634368.html

A thread on Vindman by a retired army officer who had an encounter with him.
Any career military officer who felt Obama was praise worthy would clearly be a political operative & not a true American patriot.

What if McConnell just let it wither and die? Basically ignore the house and never bring their articles to the senate floor?

Or what if the senate adopted rules that basically let the senate "trial" a forum to parade the house and 3 letter agencies skullduggery through the election season?

Point is, why hasn't anyone been interested in pointing out to the house democrats that unlike with Clinton, their party doesn't control the senate.

There is no way that the Senate will convict Trump on any of this concocted, flimsy, circumstantial, hearsay, so called evidence. If the Republican Senate morphs into a bunch of idiots and convicts Trump, Trump will just take his 50 or 60 million marbles and go home and the Republican Party is DONE !!

blindey said:

---

What if McConnell just let it wither and die? Basically ignore the house and never bring their articles to the senate floor?

Or what if the senate adopted rules that basically let the senate "trial" a forum to parade the house and 3 letter agencies skullduggery through the election season?

Point is, why hasn't anyone been interested in pointing out to the house democrats that unlike with Clinton, their party doesn't control the senate.

---

I don't think McConnell can just ignore it completely. The Senate "shall" conduct the trial, not "may" conduct a trial. Even in forming the republic, the founders didn't intend for political elites to just give the palms of their hands to the will of the people as announced by their Representatives. They have to at least consider it.

The arrogance there is amazing. As if McConnell would let the Dems dictate terms of the trial in the Senate like they are doing with Schiff's kangaroo court in the House.

And who cares about the Senators having to campaign? That's written like the Dems think they can drag this through the election. Far more likely McConnell (if it gets to the Senate) would put a box around it and say one week for the trial and we're done.

drcrinum said:

---

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1190077852680634368.html

A thread on Vindman by a retired army officer who had an encounter with him.
Any career military officer who felt Obama was praise worthy would clearly be a political operative & not a true American patriot.

---

Niice find! Very nice! So an Obama America-hating globalist toadie and liar. Got it.

Quote:

---

Niice find! Very nice! So an Obama America-hating globalist toadie and liar. Got it.

---

As if Vindman would have been anything else. The only folks that have "come forward" are the deep stater globalists.

will25u said:

---

captkirk said:

---

If they impeach, doesn't it put the Senate members running for POTUS in the penalty box for the primaries? I don't see how they can do that

---

Read this article that I posted above. But I will post the relevant section in regards to a Senate trial. This is sundance's opinion:

Quote:

---

That brings up the Senate trial. From a review of their signaling and positioning, it appears to me the objective of the Lawfare group, via the impeachment managers, will center around modifications to Senate Impeachment Rules and the use of a Senatorial Trial Panel.

The senate rules on impeachment processes can be changed and modified [Example here from 1986]. Additionally there is nothing in the constitution that requires an established number of senators to sit or convict during the trial [Constitution, Article 1, Sec 3]:

This is my interpretation of what the Lawfare group will attempt.

"Concurrence of two-thirds of the members present"

The Democrats will argue their 2020 candidates cannot spend all this time on a Senate trial. the media will be sympathetic.. Because the constitution is ambiguous to the construct. and intentionally differential to the size of the Senate. the democrat approach will be to empanel a bipartisan jury of an unknown number of Senators to sit for the trial "under oath and affirmation."

There is nothing in the constitution that would stop the Senate from assembling a jury of 10 republican senators and 10 democrat senators. It would then require "two-thirds" or thirteen for a conviction. Or the jury could be 40 or (fill_in_blank).

This type of a senate construct is what the left has been hinting about in their discussions. This is what Lawfare has been discussing since they successfully gained the Nixon Impeachment Roadmap during their lawsuit a few months ago.

---

So if they could get their jury of 10 Rep. and 10 Dem. it would only take 3 Republicans to jump ship and vote for impeachment to succeed. And you know the Republican Senators that the Democrats would try to get on the jury...

Collins
Murkowski
Romney

To name a few.

---

This doesn't make sense to me. The Senate is controlled by a Republican majority. Why on earth would McConnell and Graham allow a Jury that's favorable to the Dems vote on removal from office? If the Dems controlled both chambers then this would become a real concern, but not when Republicans control the Senate.

ccatag said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

Tom Hagen said:

---

scottimus said:

---

Haven't seen it on this thread, but Catherine Herridge is jumping to CBS news.

Sad to see her go.

CNN reporting that Foxnews is going more NeverTrumper.

---

Tucker's days at Fox are numbered. The ruling class can't allow someone with high ratings exposing them night after night.

---

Another network will emerge or Fox will lose enough viewers they will skew back to the right...there are WAY too many people who recognize the MSM as the leftist propaganda machine they've become to not impact that decision.

At the end of the day these networks are still driven by money and more and more younger Americans are getting their news from non-traditional sources...at some point they will have to adapt or die.

---

I think that too. At least I hope so and another network will see the opportunity to capture us starving viewers to the political right.
Networks have to see and know that they have lost so much credibility and perhaps the only remedy is to jettison much of their staffs and remake themselves. I'm hoping one of the major networks (abc, nbc, cbs) will make that move. We will see? Perhaps CBS will be the one to make the move first and grab the golden goose that is waiting?

---

Propagandized networks are not in it to make money. CNN has proved that. They are in it to promote an agenda. As said numerous times, they are funded from laundered money from foreign aid and liberally funded domestic programs. Networks are funded by us, the taxpayers.

Understood. But what about conducting what is little more than a show trial? Just respond in kind to the house

Prosperdick said:

---

ccatag said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

Tom Hagen said:

---

scottimus said:

---

Haven't seen it on this thread, but Catherine Herridge is jumping to CBS news.

Sad to see her go.

CNN reporting that Foxnews is going more NeverTrumper.

---

Tucker's days at Fox are numbered. The ruling class can't allow someone with high ratings exposing them night after night.

---

Another network will emerge or Fox will lose enough viewers they will skew back to the right...there are WAY too many people who recognize the MSM as the leftist propaganda machine they've become to not impact that decision.

At the end of the day these networks are still driven by money and more and more younger Americans are getting their news from non-traditional sources...at some point they will have to adapt or die.

---

I think that too. At least I hope so and another network will see the opportunity to capture us starving viewers to the political right.
Networks have to see and know that they have lost so much credibility and perhaps the only remedy is to jettison much of their staffs and remake themselves. I'm hoping one of the major networks (abc, nbc, cbs) will make that move. We will see? Perhaps CBS will be the one to make the move first and grab the golden goose that is waiting?

---

As long as Ben Rhodes's brother is president of CBS News don't hold your breath.

---

CBS is who I was thinking, too, until you said this. CBS has always seemed to me the network to cater to mid- to older middle class types that would lean conservative. Well, except for that Colbert idiot.

txaggie_08 said:

---

will25u said:

---

captkirk said:

---

If they impeach, doesn't it put the Senate members running for POTUS in the penalty box for the primaries? I don't see how they can do that

---

Read this article that I posted above. But I will post the relevant section in regards to a Senate trial. This is sundance's opinion:

Quote:

---

That brings up the Senate trial. From a review of their signaling and positioning, it appears to me the objective of the Lawfare group, via the impeachment managers, will center around modifications to Senate Impeachment Rules and the use of a Senatorial Trial Panel.

The senate rules on impeachment processes can be changed and modified [Example here from 1986]. Additionally there is nothing in the constitution that requires an established number of senators to sit or convict during the trial [Constitution, Article 1, Sec 3]:

This is my interpretation of what the Lawfare group will attempt.

"Concurrence of two-thirds of the members present"

The Democrats will argue their 2020 candidates cannot spend all this time on a Senate trial. the media will be sympathetic.. Because the constitution is ambiguous to the construct. and intentionally differential to the size of the Senate. the democrat approach will be to empanel a bipartisan jury of an unknown number of Senators to sit for the trial "under oath and affirmation."

There is nothing in the constitution that would stop the Senate from assembling a jury of 10 republican senators and 10 democrat senators. It would then require "two-thirds" or thirteen for a conviction. Or the jury could be 40 or (fill_in_blank).

This type of a senate construct is what the left has been hinting about in their discussions. This is what Lawfare has been discussing since they successfully gained the Nixon Impeachment Roadmap during their lawsuit a few months ago.

---

So if they could get their jury of 10 Rep. and 10 Dem. it would only take 3 Republicans to jump ship and vote for impeachment to succeed. And you know the Republican Senators that the Democrats would try to get on the jury...

Collins
Murkowski
Romney

To name a few.

---

This doesn't make sense to me. The Senate is controlled by a Republican majority. Why on earth would McConnell and Graham allow a Jury that's favorable to the Dems vote on removal from office? If the Dems controlled both chambers then this would become a real concern, but not when Republicans control the Senate.

---

Right? Dems act like they'd get to write all the rules for the Senate trial and hand pick the "jury" if it were to be anything less than the full Senate.

And this clown writer is a fool if he thinks that McConnell won't make everyone vote on this. They saw what happened with Clinton, lots of vulnerable Dems up for reelection next year.

Rubini going after Sperry (typical sip). Should be interesting.

The House doesn't get to tell the Senate how to conduct Senate business and vice versa. Lindsay's efforts not withstanding.

But consider this. If the current Dem Senators don't want to participate, he will excuse them and they don't get a vote. As things stand now, Booker, Warren, Klobuchar, Harris, Sanders and Bennett (if he's still running) could opt out leaving the Dems six down from their already minority position. That makes up for the squishy Republicans, Romney, Collins and Murkowski.

Problem solved.

JJMt said:

---

Are the Dems playing for multiple scenarios, one of which is Trump is re-elected but they capture the Senate? That is, the actual Senate trial might not occur until after the next election?

---

So essentially pass articles of impeachment the day before the next Congress, and then pick it up in the Senate the day after?

Isn't there some rule/law that anything not passed or something has to be redone in new congress? If so, would this apply to impeachment articles?

JJMt said:

---

Are the Dems playing for multiple scenarios, one of which is Trump is re-elected but they capture the Senate? That is, the actual Senate trial might not occur until after the next election?

---

The House would have to impeach again to bring the matter properly before the Senate. And I do think it would have to be on different articles of impeachment than those already rejected by the Senate.

Remember there is more than one vote. The Senate votes on whether to accept for trial each of the individual articles. Then have the rial on the accepted articles and vote to acquit, or convict and remove and further to bar from future office, if convicted and removed.

txaggie_08 said:

---

This doesn't make sense to me. The Senate is controlled by a Republican majority. Why on earth would McConnell and Graham allow a Jury that's favorable to the Dems vote on removal from office? If the Dems controlled both chambers then this would become a real concern, but not when Republicans control the Senate.

---

Spitballing .... possibly to shield R Senators with 2020 re-elections. Technically, a smaller Senate 'jury' wouldn't favor D's provided R's were a lock-solid 50% voting block with Rino's excluded.

aggiehawg said:

---

The House doesn't get to tell the Senate how to conduct Senate business and vice versa. Lindsay's efforts not withstanding.

But consider this. If the current Dem Senators don't want to participate, he will excuse them and they don't get a vote. As things stand now, Booker, Warren, Klobuchar, Harris, Sanders and Bennett (if he's still running) could opt out leaving the Dems six down from their already minority position. That makes up for the squishy Republicans, Romney, Collins and Murkowski.

Problem solved.

---

Like elections, impeachment has consequences.

aggiehawg said:

---

JJMt said:

---

Are the Dems playing for multiple scenarios, one of which is Trump is re-elected but they capture the Senate? That is, the actual Senate trial might not occur until after the next election?

---

The House would have to impeach again to bring the matter properly before the Senate. And I do think it would have to be on different articles of impeachment than those already rejected by the Senate.

Remember there is more than one vote. The Senate votes on whether to accept for trial each of the individual articles. Then have the rial on the accepted articles and vote to acquit, or convict and remove and further to bar from future office, if convicted and removed.

---

How many Senate votes are required to accept/reject an article of impeachment from the House?

Simple majority. Two thirds to convict and remove and for a bar from serving in federal office in the future, is my understanding.

ETA: Wait, that's under old Senate rules for impeachment. Can't predict how McConnell might propose changing the rules for this incumbent, if at all.

aggiehawg said:

---

Simple majority. Two thirds to convict and remove and for a bar from serving in federal office in the future, is my understanding.

---

So then in theory, with the R's controlling the Senate, whatever articles coming out of the house could be rejected outright on a majority vote thus no trial? I doubt it will happen but that's the type of response I'd like to see the Senate have as it would befit the way the Dems handled the process in the House.

I would think the House should consider who the Senate & President's attorneys may call as witnesses if they impeach.

Adam Schiff and his staff
Whistleblowers #1 & #2 (including all their financial records)
Nancy Pelosi and her staff
Jerry Nadler and his staff
Joe and Hunter Biden (including all their financial records)
John Kerry (including all his financial records)
Kerry's stepson Christopher Heinz (including all his financial records)
Devon Archer (including all his financial records)
George Soros (including all his financial records)

Who am I leaving out?

4stringAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Simple majority. Two thirds to convict and remove and for a bar from serving in federal office in the future, is my understanding.

---

So then in theory, with the R's controlling the Senate, whatever articles coming out of the house could be rejected outright on a majority vote thus no trial? I doubt it will happen but that's the type of response I'd like to see the Senate have as it would befit the way the Dems handled the process in the House.

---

Such a scenario is exactly what Lindsay Graham was alluding to in his Senate resolution directed at the House.

"Don't send us crap and then expect us to take it seriously."

JJMt said:

---

One thing I do know is to never, ever underestimate your opponent. And the Dems and the Swamp have a bunch of really, really smart people working on this and thinking it through.

We like to laugh at Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler, and they are contemptuous people. But they should not be taken for granted. Further, they are relentless in their hatred and pursuit. Conservatives and Trump supporters should be preparing and responding accordingly.

---

Bingo!

ANYONE who underestimates Pelosi/Lawfare is a fool. I honestly think if the Dems thought they could assassinate Trump, without any casualties (arrests) on their side, they'd do it.

aggiehawg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Simple majority. Two thirds to convict and remove and for a bar from serving in federal office in the future, is my understanding.

---

So then in theory, with the R's controlling the Senate, whatever articles coming out of the house could be rejected outright on a majority vote thus no trial? I doubt it will happen but that's the type of response I'd like to see the Senate have as it would befit the way the Dems handled the process in the House.

---

Such a scenario is exactly what Lindsay Graham was alluding to in his Senate resolution directed at the House.

"Don't send us crap and then expect us to take it seriously."

---

Much like the Kav fiasco. I think Rs would be better off accepting the garbage and then make the Dems defend it for 2 weeks on live television.

Makes Rs look like the responsible and sane party.

aggiehawg said:

---

The House doesn't get to tell the Senate how to conduct Senate business and vice versa. Lindsay's efforts not withstanding.

But consider this. If the current Dem Senators don't want to participate, he will excuse them and they don't get a vote. As things stand now, Booker, Warren, Klobuchar, Harris, Sanders and Bennett (if he's still running) could opt out leaving the Dems six down from their already minority position. That makes up for the squishy Republicans, Romney, Collins and Murkowski.

Problem solved.

---

THIS.

If the dem candidates can't tend to both running for president and doing their job in the Senate, that is fine. They don't have to.

They can either stop running for president or recuse themselves from impeachment.

The president doesn't get a pass on impeachment because he is running for re-election.

blindey said:

---

What if McConnell just let it wither and die? Basically ignore the house and never bring their articles to the senate floor?

Or what if the senate adopted rules that basically let the senate "trial" a forum to parade the house and 3 letter agencies skullduggery through the election season?

Point is, why hasn't anyone been interested in pointing out to the house democrats that unlike with Clinton, their party doesn't control the senate.

---

I prefer they drag in everyone from Adam Schaffer's office under subpoena. Hell maybe even Nancy pelosi and add a little light to the situation.

fasthorses05 said:

---

JJMt said:

---

One thing I do know is to never, ever underestimate your opponent. And the Dems and the Swamp have a bunch of really, really smart people working on this and thinking it through.

We like to laugh at Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler, and they are contemptuous people. But they should not be taken for granted. Further, they are relentless in their hatred and pursuit. Conservatives and Trump supporters should be preparing and responding accordingly.

---

Bingo!

ANYONE who underestimates Pelosi/Lawfare is a fool. I honestly think if the Dems thought they could assassinate Trump, without any casualties (arrests) on their side, they'd do it.

---

If we had an honest and non-partisan federal judiciary, Pelosi and Comey besties Lawfare blog would be stopped before too much damage was done to our justice system. Again, the old adage that bad facts make for bad law applies here.

And we have a lot of bad fact situations that are clouded over by cries of "impeachment proceedings." Exhibit A is Judge Beryl Howell's 78 page decision over the Team Mueller grand jury material. She got lost in the fog of this impeachment war.

The second old adage, when the facts are against you, pound the law, when the law is against you pound the facts, when both are against you, pound the table. We have a lot of table pounding happening right now.

(Sidenote: Remember the Internet Research case that Team Mueller never thought they would have to prosecute? Yeah well, they have been so thoroughly eviscerated in pretrial proceedings that they are asking for a complete do-over with a superceding indictment. Two bites at the apple. If a local DA tried to do that, they'd be drummed out of court and their office.)

https://www.scribd.com/document/433008269/DOJ-Response-Re-Flynn-MTC

The prosecution's surreply in the Flynn case is out. Sadly I'm about to leave home shortly & don't have time to read it now.