That is true, the vagueness in the process per the actual article and the clause that invests the actual trial completely in the Senate really gives the senate wide latitude and power that the house cannot appeal, should the senate just decide to forge ahead.

eric76 said:

---

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.

---

Do you really want the Senate to do an end run around the Constitution?

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.

---

I'm going to bang this drum over and over because it's important, and is important regardless of the party in power:

The Dem's process expressly refused Trump the right to produce exculpatory information from the Obama administration. This is a denial of due process. Remember, a key fact for the impeachment is what did Biden do, when did he decide to do it, and why.

Ask yourself: why was it so important for special rules to be passed for this impeachment process? Why not just use what's been done before, as recently as the 1990's? It goes back to Executive Privilege. Trump can't just turn over Obama documents without resolving the issues of Executive Privilege.

Two critical procedural points that most Americans won't recognize:

• All the evidence and factual testimony were taken before the Articles of Impeachment were written.
• The Judiciary Committee denied the minority a rule required day of hearings after the Articles of Impeachment were written.

In my opinion, the Articles of Impeachment, when formally introduced, define the around which Executive Privilege is weakened or removed. The Dems never gave the Republicans, much less Trump, an opportunity to genuinely participate once the Articles were drafted and being considered. The process was manipulated to protect Democrat Party sacred cows and in that manipulation, America was schiff on.

Rant suspended, though I'll almost certainly post it again.

The Dems know that they can't get half the Senate much less 2/3rds. The whole impeachment w/o referral to the Senate is a salvage operation in the hopes that calling Trump an impeached President will help them next November.....but mainly, IMO, they want to be able to declare the idea of an impeached President picking new new SC justice as unthinkable.

backintexas2013 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

That's why it's not a power play. Knowing you are going to lose and refusing to play your hand is not and has never been a power play.

The ass whipping they have taken lately is glorious. First Schiff gets bludgeoned because of the IG report and now this.

---

If they are able to hold the Senate trial off until whatever time it is most advantageous for the Democrats, they are telling the Senate that they can't hold the trial until the House tells them that they can hold it. They are essentially attempting to control that part of the Senate trial.

Of course, it may not work, but I don't see how that would affect whether it is a power play.

Squadron7 said:

---

The Dems know that they can't get half the Senate much less 2/3rds. The whole impeachment w/o referral to the Senate is a salvage operation in the hopes that calling Trump an impeached President will help them next November.....but mainly, IMO, they want to be able to declare the idea of an impeached President picking new new SC justice as unthinkable.

---

There is also language in the Constitution about impeachment and the power to pardon. I can't think of a reason the Dems would care enough about pardons to do all this, but it's worth a footnote for future reference.

Patentmike said:

---

eric76 said:

---

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.

---

Do you really want the Senate to do an end run around the Constitution?

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.

---

I'm going to bang this drum over and over because it's important, and is important regardless of the party in power:

The Dem's process expressly refused Trump the right to produce exculpatory information from the Obama administration. This is a denial of due process. Remember, a key fact for the impeachment is what did Biden do, when did he decide to do it, and why.

Ask yourself: why was it so important for special rules to be passed for this impeachment process? Why not just use what's been done before, as recently as the 1990's? It goes back to Executive Privilege. Trump can't just turn over Obama documents without resolving the issues of Executive Privilege.

Two critical procedural points that most Americans won't recognize:

• All the evidence and factual testimony were taken before the Articles of Impeachment were written.
• The Judiciary Committee denied the minority a rule required day of hearings after the Articles of Impeachment were written.

In my opinion, the Articles of Impeachment, when formally introduced, define the around which Executive Privilege is weakened or removed. The Dems never gave the Republicans, much less Trump, an opportunity to genuinely participate once the Articles were drafted and being considered. The process was manipulated to protect Democrat Party sacred cows and in that manipulation, America was schiff on.

Rant suspended, though I'll almost certainly post it again.

---

Are you suggesting that the impeachment should precede the investigation?

Has there ever been any impeachment where the evidence and factual testimony were taken only after the Articles of Impeachment were written?

I'm thinking that the Articles of Impeachment are highly dependent on the outcome of the investigation, not the reason to begin the investigation.

Wildcat said:

---

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.

---

How? Impeachment is done. The matter moves to the Senate.

---

Wildcat----I guess I should have been more clear and say Nancy is going to keep the Articles of Impeachment in the House of Representatives until the 2020 Presidential Election. It is my belief is is purposely delaying the matter moving to the Senate.

Old And Busted: Right to a speedy trial.

New Hotness: Right to a speedy indictment.

Quote:

---

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.

---

That definition was coined in 1901 and has been outdated for a very long time - probably as long as you and I have been alive.

A more modern definition would replace "single crop or other product that is typically controlled by a single company" with "limited sources of news and opinions typically controlled by a very few media outlets".

Our society is rapidly becoming "highly dependent on a single source of news and opinions", which IS leading us to a "dictatorial government in which that single source has enormous influence".

It will only take a generation, or two at most, for the Dems and the media they control to create a "dictatorial government". Hell, almost ALL of the current Dem candidates are socialists who want the government to control our economy - a dictatorship, if you will. And that message seems to resonate with our younger generation.

So in my mind, we ARE becoming a "banana republic" - the lib controlled media replacing the outdated "single crop or product" definition.

oldcrow91 said:

---

Sounds like obstruction of the senate. We must impeach Nancy.

---

Also sounds like she has started another "Constitutional Crisis" as well as ignoring the "will of the American people".

eric76 said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

eric76 said:

---

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.

---

Do you really want the Senate to do an end run around the Constitution?

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.

---

I'm going to bang this drum over and over because it's important, and is important regardless of the party in power:

The Dem's process expressly refused Trump the right to produce exculpatory information from the Obama administration. This is a denial of due process. Remember, a key fact for the impeachment is what did Biden do, when did he decide to do it, and why.

Ask yourself: why was it so important for special rules to be passed for this impeachment process? Why not just use what's been done before, as recently as the 1990's? It goes back to Executive Privilege. Trump can't just turn over Obama documents without resolving the issues of Executive Privilege.

Two critical procedural points that most Americans won't recognize:

• All the evidence and factual testimony were taken before the Articles of Impeachment were written.
• The Judiciary Committee denied the minority a rule required day of hearings after the Articles of Impeachment were written.

In my opinion, the Articles of Impeachment, when formally introduced, define the around which Executive Privilege is weakened or removed. The Dems never gave the Republicans, much less Trump, an opportunity to genuinely participate once the Articles were drafted and being considered. The process was manipulated to protect Democrat Party sacred cows and in that manipulation, America was schiff on.

Rant suspended, though I'll almost certainly post it again.

---

Are you suggesting that the impeachment should precede the investigation?

Has there ever been any impeachment where the evidence and factual testimony were taken only after the Articles of Impeachment were written?

I'm thinking that the Articles of Impeachment are highly dependent on the outcome of the investigation, not the reason to begin the investigation.

---

Why not both? The judiciary committee could easily have taken further testimony, "now that Articles are under consideration". They went out of their way, schiffing on House rules, to avoid that.

eric76 said:

---

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.

---

The House chooses their own managers and the Senate has nothing to say about it.

For what it's worth, I don't think it would be at all appropriate for the Senate to get the charges from the newspaper. If the House won't transmit the charges to them, it might arguably be reasonable for the Senate to get the charges from the Congressional Record.

---

Are there specific rules about how the house selects the managers? If a majority appointment / election isn't specifically articulated by law - then the Senate should just put it in the calendar and have SOME representative standing by to read everything into record. If the Dems want to play this game - play it back. Make the media report on why it's not official, which paints Pelosi as the petulant child.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Well said!

Arguing over the phrase "banana republic" is common frustration of Eric's. Just as others can't wait to pounce on the true meaning of "fajitas" and "kolaches".

Adam Ag 98 said:

---

Arguing over the phrase "banana republic" is common frustration of Eric's. Just as others can't wait to pounce on the true meaning of "fajitas" and "kolaches".

---

Acute cliffclavenitis.

Quote:

---

Acute cliffclavenitis.

---

Took me a minute to get that one. Hilarious - and spot on!

Swarely said:

---

Quote:

---

Minutes after the House voted to impeach President Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) dropped a bombshell: She won't send the articles of impeachment to the Senate until she feels they'll get a fair hearing on the other side of Capitol Hill.

---

---

It will definitely be more fair than the House hearing.
So then it's over? Am I missing something? Trump won right?

NormanAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Acute cliffclavenitis.

---

Took me a minute to get that one. Hilarious - and spot on!

---

Almost went with just clavenitis...you know, to up the trivia skill level required.

Evidence to back up my assertion that our younger generation is embracing socialism/communism:

Quote:

---

A recent Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation survey found that 51% of American millennials would rather live in a socialist or communist country than in a capitalist country. Only 42% prefer the latter.

---

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/williams-young-people-and-their-troubling-views-on-socialism-and-communism

eric76 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

I guess you've never heard of a metaphor either. You're definition and understanding is incorrect, again.

NormanAg said:

---

Evidence to back up my assertion that our younger generation is embracing socialism/communism:

Quote:

---

A recent Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation survey found that 51% of American millennials would rather live in a socialist or communist country than in a capitalist country. Only 42% prefer the latter.

---

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/williams-young-people-and-their-troubling-views-on-socialism-and-communism

---

Now poll younger people in the former eastern block.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

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?

Since they aren't going to put Trump in jail while waiting for the trial, that issue is moot.

What other reasons are there for the right to a speedy trial?

---

I would think the fact that being impeached and having that cloud over your head affects in some ways his ability to govern, negotiate foreign policy (i.e. a China trade deal as example), etc. That in turn affects the country.

Pelosi allowed (or wanted) this impeachment to happen and used her power to ensure it did, she owes it then to both her constituents who want impeachment and those of us who want to see this charade end to turn it over quickly and let the Senate finish it.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

eric76 said:

---

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.

---

The House chooses their own managers and the Senate has nothing to say about it.

For what it's worth, I don't think it would be at all appropriate for the Senate to get the charges from the newspaper. If the House won't transmit the charges to them, it might arguably be reasonable for the Senate to get the charges from the Congressional Record.

---

Are there specific rules about how the house selects the managers? If a majority appointment / election isn't specifically articulated by law - then the Senate should just put it in the calendar and have SOME representative standing by to read everything into record. If the Dems want to play this game - play it back. Make the media report on why it's not official, which paints Pelosi as the petulant child.

---

The House selects the managers. The Senate has no say in that matter.

If the House managers don't show up to prosecute, it is hard to imagine how it isn't pretty much a default judgment for the defendant. The Senate shouldn't need to have anyone standing by to read the testimony into the record.

And imagine if the House managers didn't show up -- those Democrats who really want to see Trump impeached even more than their desire to impose slavery reparations for all who are either black or who identify themselves as black and do away with heterosexual marriages wouldn't be very happy with the House Democrats.

Bo Darville said:

---

"What line of pretentious 80's clothing are we selling? Which mall is our store front located in? Are we even in retail. The US cannot be a Banana Republic."

- Eric76

---

With arguments like that, you'd fit right in with the far left.

Quote:

---

Pelosi allowed (or wanted) this impeachment to happen and used her power to ensure it did, she owes it then to both her constituents who want impeachment and those of us who want to see this charade end to turn it over quickly and let the Senate finish it.

---

Does she strike you as the type that thinks she owes you or anyone else anything?

Cassius said:

---

eric76 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

I guess you've never heard of a metaphor either. You're definition and understanding is incorrect, again.

---

It's one thing to argue something like "You're turning this into a banana republic", but it is something entirely different to actually believe your own hyperbole.

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Pelosi allowed (or wanted) this impeachment to happen and used her power to ensure it did, she owes it then to both her constituents who want impeachment and those of us who want to see this charade end to turn it over quickly and let the Senate finish it.

---

Does she strike you as the type that thinks she owes you or anyone else anything?

---

Nope.

NormanAg said:

---

Evidence to back up my assertion that our younger generation is embracing socialism/communism:

Quote:

---

A recent Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation survey found that 51% of American millennials would rather live in a socialist or communist country than in a capitalist country. Only 42% prefer the latter.

---

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/williams-young-people-and-their-troubling-views-on-socialism-and-communism

---

My solution to this is to tax all millenials at the common 45% payroll tax rate in Sweden. Since we dont have a VAT(yet) we will charge millenials the equivalent of what the Swede consumer pays by charging them 25% tax on all they consume in non food items and 12% on food consumption.

Than we will see how long they remain socialists.

policywonk98 said:

---

NormanAg said:

---

Evidence to back up my assertion that our younger generation is embracing socialism/communism:

Quote:

---

A recent Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation survey found that 51% of American millennials would rather live in a socialist or communist country than in a capitalist country. Only 42% prefer the latter.

---

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/williams-young-people-and-their-troubling-views-on-socialism-and-communism

---

My solution to this is to tax all millenials at the common 45% payroll tax rate in Sweden. Since we dont have a VAT(yet) we will charge millenials the equivalent of what the Swede consumer pays by charging them 25% tax on all they consume in non food items and 12% on food consumption.

Than we will see how long they remain socialists.

---

https://reddit.app.link/0Kf7v4B5x2

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Pelosi is conducting a trial by the public. Imagine a DA that had a public grand jury proceeding and read out the indictment and then did 24/7 media publicity on the indictment without ever bringing charges to a court.

No court in America would tolerate that. But yet, that is what this might become.

---

BINGO