• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pelosi threatens to delay Senate impeachment trial

Anthony60 said:
How soon? You tell me. The Constitution is silent on that.


Sent from my iPhone XX Turbo using Tapacrap
Click to expand...
You see: I don’t understand why Mr. Trump and Moscow-Mitch are getting their panties in a bunch over this... Sit tight, Ms. Nancy will see you soon...
 
Conservative said:
This issue doesn't resonate with the American people
Click to expand...

yes a phone call to Ukraine to further long standing American policy( root out corruption) is pretty trivial compared to others committed by other presidents by a factor of 1000!!

Also, isn't it interesting that Dims said Climate Change was our WW2 and then they gave it up over a simple phone call? Now they can run for election based on the phone call and no agenda at all.
 
James972 said:
yes a phone call to Ukraine to further long standing American policy( root out corruption) is pretty trivial compared to others committed by other presidents by a factor of 1000!!

Also, isn't it interesting that Dims said Climate Change was our WW2 and then they gave it up over a simple phone call? Now they can run for election based on the phone call and no agenda at all.
Click to expand...

Well that....and trumps crimes
 
dcsports said:
What crimes? If there's evidence that Trump committed a crime, they should impeach him for it, rather than the vague articles they used.
Click to expand...

Newsflash


Trump impeached
 
James972 said:
Well, dims knew the situation going it. So now they must pay the price for ignoring it, which is a botched impeachment. They could have spent the time promoting the Green New Deal as a means to get rid of Trump but that would have been even more embarrassing for them.
Click to expand...
Mr. Trump’s base is willing to sacrifice their 1st born to protect their “Dear Leader”
_To the Fox News - TalkRadio Trump GOP base, Trump is unimpeachable regardless of the level of atrocity of his acts...
Trumpism is a cult!
 
Cicotte said:
Mr. Trump’s base is willing to sacrifice their 1st born to protect their “Dear Leader”
_!
Click to expand...

yes in part because the alternative is the Green New Deal Great Communist Depression. Do you understand??
 
vegas giants said:
So then whenever she wants to. She can wait till after the election....like McConnell did
Click to expand...

As far as impeachment goes, she really can't. If she waits until after the election, the senate will just drop it. It would be a moot point after the next election, the Senate doesn't want to impeach during the holiday season, and Democrats lose any argument of 'urgency'. Politically, that would be a disaster for Democrats, as the extreme left wing would be furious and more 'moderate' democrats would be frustrate that we didn't move on. Republicans would pound the fact the impeachment was political.
 
Cicotte said:
Trump is unimpeachable regardless of the level of atrocity of his acts...
!
Click to expand...

actually a phone call in furtherance of long standing policy to fight corruption is not an atrocity. Do you understand??
 
dcsports said:
As far as impeachment goes, she really can't. If she waits until after the election, the senate will just drop it. It would be a moot point after the next election, the Senate doesn't want to impeach during the holiday season, and Democrats lose any argument of 'urgency'. Politically, that would be a disaster for Democrats, as the extreme left wing would be furious and more 'moderate' democrats would be frustrate that we didn't move on. Republicans would pound the fact the impeachment was political.
Click to expand...

Do something quickly but incorrectly is just stupid. Pelosi is doing this the fastest way possible that gets Mulvaney and Bolton on the stand.


She is a political genius
 
dcsports said:
As far as impeachment goes, she really can't. If she waits until after the election, the senate will just drop it. It would be a moot point after the next election, the Senate doesn't want to impeach during the holiday season, and Democrats lose any argument of 'urgency'. Politically, that would be a disaster for Democrats, as the extreme left wing would be furious and more 'moderate' democrats would be frustrate that we didn't move on. Republicans would pound the fact the impeachment was political.
Click to expand...

yes Democrats already lost in polls over impeachment. If they quit now it wil just mean they knew the obvious ie they would lose in Senate. Better to do that than go to Senate where Republican are in control and will treat it like joke that it is.
 
vegas giants said:
Do something quickly but incorrectly is just stupid. Pelosi is doing this the fastest way possible that gets Mulvaney and Bolton on the stand.


She is a political genius
Click to expand...

She is a political genius. I'm amazed at how she's maintained her office for so long, and with such a tight grip.

But in this - she is not a genius. She's desperate, and doing the best she can with a losing hand. She's trying to deflect stink to the Senate.

The Senate (both sides) does not want to try this. They aren't going to do anything because Pelosi demanded it. The public (and extremists in her own party) won't let this go far past the holiday break. She'll get something other than 'no witnesses' and claim a victory.

I think they'll follow a format very close to the Clinton impeachment, with perhaps a few people giving focused, taped, depositions. (Possibly even decided after the trial starts). It won't be the 'anything goes' public hearing that Pelosi and democrats want.
 
dcsports said:
She is a political genius. I'm amazed at how she's maintained her office for so long, and with such a tight grip.

But in this - she is not a genius. She's desperate, and doing the best she can with a losing hand. She's trying to deflect stink to the Senate.

The Senate (both sides) does not want to try this. They aren't going to do anything because Pelosi demanded it. The public (and extremists in her own party) won't let this go far past the holiday break. She'll get something other than 'no witnesses' and claim a victory.

I think they'll follow a format very close to the Clinton impeachment, with perhaps a few people giving focused, taped, depositions. (Possibly even decided after the trial starts). It won't be the 'anything goes' public hearing that Pelosi and democrats want.
Click to expand...

Mulvaney and Bolton must testify. Bolton has publicly said he has information pertaining to this impeachment.


If this is a search for the truth.....start there
 
Athanasius68 said:
Which is true.
Click to expand...

Which is true.
Click to expand...

Barr has a very radical, extreme view of the Executive branch, which is common only amongst authoritarian types who think the President should be able to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and to hell with the consequences. The people who accept Barr's view of the executive are not conservative or libertarian. They are instead thugs, bullies, punks who think the President should be above the law.

Assume the following example: the President fires the FBI director because the FBI director is investigating the President and the President does not want to be implicated in a crime or an impeachable offense.

That is flat-out obstruction even though the President would ordinarily have the authority to fire the FBI director.

Barr disagrees. Prosecutors disagree upon the applicability of law. Under Mueller's theory, such disagreements open up prosecutors to claims of obstructing for doing their job.
Click to expand...

And federal prosecutors disagree with Barr:

Hundreds of ex-federal prosecutors sign letter saying Trump deserved obstruction charge - Los Angeles Times

Whoever it is, and whatever position they occupy, whether it is federal prosecutors or Presidents, they are always bound to the logic of the law and the logic of the Constitution, and to objective reality itself, and more importantly...to the OATH they took when they assumed office.

If any government official bends official actions towards evil ends, they should be held to account.

No. And Barr was quite clear that a president is not above the law.
Click to expand...

Then Barr has not thought out the consequences of his extreme views, or doesn't care.
 
Last edited:
Fred C Dobbs said:
Defend him against what? That's the problem for the Democrats.
Click to expand...

The charges in the impeachment articles of course. Problem solved. Here in America when you are indicted you need to provide a defense. This is not Russia and the Senate trial is not a kangaroo court. Being a partisan is not a defense.
 
Keridan said:
All of the founding fathers who signed the constitution - now I've read your tripe you consider posts and don't expect me to take you seriously
Click to expand...

Quote where the founding fathers said that the Senate can put a timeline on the House for handing over articles of Impeachment...I will wait while you sulk in the corner about how wrong you are.
 
ClaraD said:
Quote where the founding fathers said that the Senate can put a timeline on the House for handing over articles of Impeachment...
Click to expand...

its implied given that impeachment is supposed to be important and move alone where possible. THe idea of indicting and smearing someone but not giving him opportunity to clear himself is very very unconsttutional. Do you understand?
 
Keridan said:
I have named them and you just can't admit that because you would have to admit your posts look entirely foolish up to and including this one - I even took the pity and time to give you modern one from Supreme Court of New Jersey, but that doesn't fit your desperate narrative

I did not give an opinion either, I stated plainly that senate has sole power to try impeachment (a fact) and that house makes the rules for the house (a fact) and senate makes the rules for the senate (a fact) If you care to dispute these things and maybe provide a "modern legal scholar" who says the house can arrest the process until the senate meets their demands, I will be interested to see it, but your own medicine won't go down well since you haven't provided any facts (really, ever)

I know you like to dismiss something when it goes contrary to the very limited understanding of politics (or well, anything) in your posts, but that's okay, we didn't expect much
Click to expand...

you haven't named a single legal opinion of which you claim.
 
ClaraD said:
The SCOTUS has no standing on making any decisions about impeachment.
Click to expand...

not sure about that; they are ideal party to resolve impasse between other 2 branches.
 
iguanaman said:
The charges in the impeachment articles of course. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

A phone call in furtherance of long standing US policy against corruption is not legitimate charge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom