lcraggie said:
I believe Nancy is going to hold the impeachment until the election in order to attempt to keep the Supreme Court open when RBG passes. Nancy knows RBG is not long for the earth and can't have Trump appoint ABC or another conservative Justice to the Supreme Court. She is playing the long game on the court in my opinion. She wants as much distraction as possible for the Supreme Court appointment.
Clearly they don't know what this means.Quote:
fair
The Constitutional guarantee for a speedy trial is for a criminal trial. Since an impeachment is not a criminal trial, there is no 6th amendment violation in this case.Stressboy said:eric76 said:Do you really want the Senate to do an end run around the Constitution?BuddysBud said:
Can the Senate just make up rules that are obviously biased, and vote that if the House doesn't bring the case within a certain time (say 3 days), the trial is over?
It's not like the House impeachment process was an open, unbiased investigation with due process and both parties were allowed equal opportunities to present evidence.
The House impeachment process was screwed up, but not for the reason you think. Do you really believe that someone is denied due process if they are not permitted to be a part of the investigation against them? Let's empty out the prisons if that is true.
And don't forget that the House Judiciary Committee extended an offer to Trump to be represented in their hearings and Trump turned them down. That should pretty much end any nonsense about due process violations.
Hey Eric where do you stand on the 6th Amendment that guarantees a speedy trial. By purposely not allowing this to go to the senate for trial the house is violating the 6th. If I was trump I would immediately appeal to the Supreme Court to ensure a speedy trial.
An impeachment is not a legislative matter.BuddysBud said:eric76 said:That's not the case at all. Impeachments survive the end of one Congress and into the next Congress._mpaul said:Great question. I can't imagine it survives past the end of this Congress, much like a bill sent to the Senate from the House but then not acted on.AustinAg2K said:Is there a time limit on how long the impeachment is good for? I'm wondering if she intends on keeping the impeachment until after the election in hopes the Democrats gain a majority in the Senate.Franklin Delano Bluth said:
I'm not understanding how this is considered a power play or how this strategy will help Democrats in any way...
They voted to impeach, but now refuse take articles to trial
They're literally admitting to playing games at this point
What would change is that if the trial was going on at the end of one Congress and into the next Congress, any House managers who were no longer in office would have to be replaced. Also, if the Republicans took the House, then they would surely replace the House managers with Republicans.
Where does it say that in the Construction?
If impeachment is a political process and the president is re-elected then the voters (states) have decided. It looks like you, like Nancy, are just making up BS as you go along.
An impeachment is a political matter, not a criminal matter. A President could be impeached without breaking any law at all. When it comes down to it, an impeachable act is whatever the House bases an impeachment on.BuddysBud said:eric76 said:Do you really want the Senate to do an end run around the Constitution?BuddysBud said:
Can the Senate just make up rules that are obviously biased, and vote that if the House doesn't bring the case within a certain time (say 3 days), the trial is over?
It's not like the House impeachment process was an open, unbiased investigation with due process and both parties were allowed equal opportunities to present evidence.
The House impeachment process was screwed up, but not for the reason you think. Do you really believe that someone is denied due process if they are not permitted to be a part of the investigation against them? Let's empty out the prisons if that is true.
And don't forget that the House Judiciary Committee extended an offer to Trump to be represented in their hearings and Trump turned them down. That should pretty much end any nonsense about due process violations.
The House refused the minority party to present evidence that didn't fit their narrative.
The House found no evidence of wrongdoing.
No grand jury in the world would present charges based upon the evidence presented in the House hearings, much of which was done in secret. The Dems repeatedly broke House rules and even rules set by the Dems for this process.
The House Dems have been calling for impeachment since the day Trump was elected. Not one Republican voted for impeachment. It was obviously a partisan hack job that was done to undo the 2016 election.
It was a complete shredding of the Constitution.
Since Nancy set the precedent, so yes to end this farce, I would not mind that the Senate follows the same standards set by the House.
Give me a break about the judiciary committee representation. One witness, a Democrat who does like Trump, shredded the "Orange Man Bad" crying of the other two on a Constitutional basis. What would have council done there.
The Senate should dismiss quickly and then launch an investigation into Schiff and Pelosi.
Yes. But it is vastly different in many ways from both criminal trials and civil trials. If we were to make a list of differences and similarities, I suspect that we would find more differences than similarities.MouthBQ98 said:
It is a trial, and all trials are intended to be conducted at a reasonable pace.
The House chooses their own managers and the Senate has nothing to say about it.Get Off My Lawn said:
A. Set the date
B. Tell pelosi that congressmen present that morning will be considered managers.
C. Have a republican read the impeachment documents word by word
D. Vote.
Isn't the most important reason for the right to a speedy trial so that the defendant is not held in jail for longer than necessary to be able to defend himself in court?MouthBQ98 said:
It is a trial, and all trials are intended to be conducted at a reasonable pace. It may not Be specifically denoted by the 6th, but it is an ethical standard in practice to not unethically and punitively delay a government proceeding to harm a defendant.
The US is not now and will never be a banana republic.AgNav93 said:
Can she possibly wait until after the 2020 election to see if they get the senate back? Can she wait that long? if that's the case we are now a banana republic. I'm so afraid for our country.
I wish I could give this 1,000 blue stars. the Dims don't want the circus to close and now will dragged it out as long as they think it will disrupt Trump._mpaul said:
Pfft. Concessions my &*$%. Let it sit.
I thought it was so damn important it had to be done. Now it's so damn important we can't do it?
Nutjobs.
A banana republic is a country who's economy is highly dependent on a single crop or other product that is typically controlled by a single company and with a dictatorial government in which that company has enormous influence. None of those apply to the US and it is not likely that we will ever become such a country.NormanAg said:
Could you explain your reasoning behind that statement? I think you are dead wrong on this one. IMO we ARE headed that way with this impeachment and it's the fault of the Dems AND the msm, which the Dems pretty much control now. You have made some good points on this thread - this was not one of them.
You are taking that term too literally. The common meaning of Banana Republic is a country that is politically unstable and the rule of law is weak.eric76 said:A banana republic is a country who's economy is highly dependent on a single crop or other product that is typically controlled by a single company and with a dictatorial government in which that company has enormous influence. None of those apply to the US and it is not likely that we will ever become such a country.NormanAg said:
Could you explain your reasoning behind that statement? I think you are dead wrong on this one. IMO we ARE headed that way with this impeachment and it's the fault of the Dems AND the msm, which the Dems pretty much control now. You have made some good points on this thread - this was not one of them.
It a crazy move. It's easy to see why they are doing it -- the Senate is not going to convict Trump in the impeachment trial -- but it is likely to come back and bite the Democrats hard down the road.backintexas2013 said:
This is as far from a power play that there is. This is throw up our hands and surrender play. She looks even weaker than before. GJ and Met must be so impressed.
I wish I shared your optimism. I think it's already too late.eric76 said:The US is not now and will never be a banana republic.AgNav93 said:
Can she possibly wait until after the 2020 election to see if they get the senate back? Can she wait that long? if that's the case we are now a banana republic. I'm so afraid for our country.
They may be stuck with that, but it seems reasonable that there are ways around it.MouthBQ98 said:
How about the senate completely ignore the impeachment until it is delivered, and go about routine business until it is presented?
What is our one product? What foreign company controls that product and what dictator do we have that does whatever that foreign company wants him to do?AgNav93 said:I wish I shared your optimism. I think it's already too late.eric76 said:The US is not now and will never be a banana republic.AgNav93 said:
Can she possibly wait until after the 2020 election to see if they get the senate back? Can she wait that long? if that's the case we are now a banana republic. I'm so afraid for our country.
eric76 said:It a crazy move. It's easy to see why they are doing it -- the Senate is not going to convict Trump in the impeachment trial -- but it is likely to come back and bite the Democrats hard down the road.backintexas2013 said:
This is as far from a power play that there is. This is throw up our hands and surrender play. She looks even weaker than before. GJ and Met must be so impressed.
