• 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!

McConnell rejects Pelosi's request for impeachment trial demands

cabse5 said:
Dems were counting on an adverse reaction of GOPS by 'swing' districts of the voting public to impeachment. That GOPs would lose congressional seats due to impeachment. It looks like impeachment may hurt dems (due to polling results) more in the 2020.
Click to expand...

Show the polls and your logical rationale as to why you think impeachment would hurt the Democratic Party.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Show the polls and your logical rationale as to why you think impeachment would hurt the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...

I have this article which really doesn't prove definitively.How Impeachment Affects Vulnerable House Democrats - The Atlantic

I also used the logic that dems which won elections in 2018 in districts voting for Trump in the 2016 would need the 'boost' of undeniable Trump guilt from the impeachment proceedings. Unless you're a hater of Trump (that wouldn't be one of the voters from districts which voted for Trump in 2016), that undeniable evidence of guilt hasn't been produced and those dems which voted for impeachment are going to suffer in upcoming elections.
 
dcsports said:
The procedural process we're discussing is handing off the articles to the Senate. That is absolutely her duty as the chief administrative officer of the House. This jumps into very questionable territory, and if she really intended to hold the articles, would be a constitutional issue that could go to the judiciary. It's no different than the Speaker of the House or Senate Majority leader refusing to send an approved bill to the other chamber or the president. It's going against the express will of the legislative body they work for - and isn't something that that leader has the right to do.

I don't care if she appoints managers. It's the agreed upon process, but the senate could vote on another one. It would show Pelosi to be the partisan and divisive one. The senate could then treat it like a civil case where the plaintiff refused to show.
Click to expand...

I wish the Senate would go ahead and investigate rumors that Ukrainians aided Hillary in 2016 and that the Bidens were getting rich working for a Ukrainian mob figure.
 
marke said:
I wish the Senate would go ahead and investigate rumors that Ukrainians aided Hillary in 2016 and that the Bidens were getting rich working for a Ukrainian mob figure.
Click to expand...

And why isn't the Senate already doing this?
 
W_Heisenberg said:
And why isn't the Senate already doing this?
Click to expand...

I believe there is a flaw in Congress in that all the politicians have a temptation to go along and get along with their fellow politicians and not treat crimes by fellow politicians the same as those crimes would be treated if committed by others outside their inner circle. Not only that, but if one politician has a dirty secret he is hiding then he will not likely turn the light on the crimes of another politician who is aware of his dirty secret.

When American elect leaders with low morals, selfish interests, and uncivilized values then they are affecting the whole country since bad politicians in power tend to spread corruption. Good politicians do not tend to influence others for good as much as bad politicians influence others for evil.
 
cabse5 said:
Dems were counting on an adverse reaction of GOPS by 'swing' districts of the voting public to impeachment. That GOPs would lose congressional seats due to impeachment. It looks like impeachment may hurt dems (due to polling results) more in the 2020.
Click to expand...

I think they were counting on controversy and vague accusations. Impeachment itself was always a losing proposition - which is why Pelosi and most other Democrat leaders tried so hard to avoid it. I think they saw it was inevitable, and are rushing to try to get through it as quickly as possible so they can salvage some of the campaign season.

I think it's turning out worse for them than they thought. Among other things, they have lost all press coverage of their primary. Iowa is in only three weeks - when was the last time you saw anything in the news about the Democrat candidates? Or even on this forum? Super Tuesday is March 3 - which is going to put it right in the middle of the hearings. They'll be lucky to get results scrolling across the bottom of the screen. A third of the field (Klobuchar, Sanders, Warren, and Booker) won't even be able to campaign or participate in debates, because they'll be in the trial.

For Democrats, it's a disaster.
 
dcsports said:
I think they were counting on controversy and vague accusations. Impeachment itself was always a losing proposition - which is why Pelosi and most other Democrat leaders tried so hard to avoid it. I think they saw it was inevitable, and are rushing to try to get through it as quickly as possible so they can salvage some of the campaign season.

I think it's turning out worse for them than they thought. Among other things, they have lost all press coverage of their primary. Iowa is in only three weeks - when was the last time you saw anything in the news about the Democrat candidates? Or even on this forum? Super Tuesday is March 3 - which is going to put it right in the middle of the hearings. They'll be lucky to get results scrolling across the bottom of the screen. A third of the field (Klobuchar, Sanders, Warren, and Booker) won't even be able to campaign or participate in debates, because they'll be in the trial.

For Democrats, it's a disaster.
Click to expand...

If it is a disaster, what was the potential benefit of impeachment for dems?
 
W_Heisenberg said:
It really depends on the burden of proof you are shooting for. If you are going for the criminal law, beyond a reasonable doubt standard, then yes, the case probably hasn't been adequately proven.
Click to expand...

This line is very important to the argument for a trial. Trump supporters always cry they want PWOOFTM! Like big internet babies. Well that's what a trial is supposed to establish. The senate's job in an impeachment is to hold a trial, to prove or disprove just as in a court of law. Now if they insist on rigging it by not calling any witnesses who have first hand knowledge, understanding or insight into the events and timeline in question they are not doing their job. They are certainly not establishing the president's innocence beyond a reasonable doubt; instead they're sweeping it under the carpet.

I'm not really interested in the OP angle that this is a procedural PR fight between evil/noble Pelosi and McConnell in which one side or the other gets 'pwned'. If Trump is innocent he should not fear any witnesses. Executive privilege is no excuse.

Those who do not wish Bolton or Pompeo or others in the know to testify know their testimonies will likely incriminate the president further and are merely trying to protect him. In other words if you don't want a proper trial folks, its obvious as hell you know the president is guilty as hell. McConnell knows this. So do the Trumpsters here.
 
Last edited:
W_Heisenberg said:
I have said all along, even when people thought Pelosi's move was stupid and criticized her for it, that this strategy by Pelosi was riskless.

There has been no harm caused to the case the Democrats are making to hit the pause button and say, "How does a trial work without witnesses?"

You seem to be really annoyed that Pelosi and the Democrats might have a victory. What's wrong with that? Let her and the Democrats have a victory. Will the world end if this happens?
Click to expand...

Riskless - it's a salvage attempt. Yes, I get annoyed with silly, pointless, politicking, and wasting of time. But here, I'm really just pointing out the facts. Many on the left bought into this being a serious tactic, and are still saying 'Hold the articles!'

W_Heisenberg said:
And if Trump truly is innocent as nearly all of his supporters maintain then there is no clever ploy Pelosi could implement that would change the outcome of anything happening here.
Click to expand...

Clear talking point there, with a dash of generalization thrown in. There's not even an alleged crime for him to be innocent of. Policy disagreements should be tried at the ballot box.

W_Heisenberg said:
How would we know with the greatest practical certainty that there was no alleged crime if witnesses who can provide first-hand testimony of what happened are prevented from testifying?

It does not make any logical sense to forbid the witnesses from testifying unless the goal is to engineer a rigged trial for Trump.
Click to expand...

More talking points thrown in there. No witnesses have been prevented from testifying. If Democrats wanted to continue their partisan investigation, and needed more witnesses to prove an impeachable offense, they should have continued the process.

This is a senate trial, for the House to present the evidence - not to discover it. The senate does not want a circus.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Another way of putting it: it's no different than the Senate Majority Leader, McConnell, refusing to take up bills passed by the Democratic-majority House.
Click to expand...

That's false. It's very different.
 
marke said:
I wish the Senate would go ahead and investigate rumors that Ukrainians aided Hillary in 2016 and that the Bidens were getting rich working for a Ukrainian mob figure.
Click to expand...

On the one hand, investigation to knock down impeachment claims would, at least, help Trump in the 2020 presidential. On another hand there should be no need to legitimize, to create precedents of impeachments lacking facts...No impeachment witnesses.

If I had another hand, maybe witnesses could be called for another investigation (maybe headed by Giuliani:roll:) to determine the innocence or guilt of Biden. On another hand, it would be a bad precedent, IMO, if a political figure campaigning for president could avoid investigation because of the impropriety of the investigation.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
If it is a disaster, what was the potential benefit of impeachment for dems?
Click to expand...

The radical left was beating the drum, along with a few other Democrats in very left districts that felt it would help them in the election. I think it got to the point where Pelosi (and other house leadership) felt it was inevitable. Had they continued on the path they were going, they could have brought more articles, and had a drawn out process in the summer - with the same result - right before the election. They pushed this very narrow case in hopes of getting past it quickly, so they could do damage control and focus on elections in the fall.
 
Moot said:
Evangelicals don't think he's presidential. They know he's a pig...but he's doing their bidding....so they overlook his piggy behaviour. At least they're honest about it...but not you. You think he's "plenty presidential."
Click to expand...
Yep, he is. That's my opinion. He respects the Constitution, our troops, and our country. None of which could be said of his predecessor.
 
FinnFox said:
I think it's just clown show anyway. Republicans don't take it seriously and Democrats are helpless in senate as they are minority. Nothing gonna happen. There isn't even chance to make it more stupid as it is.
Click to expand...

Yes. Democrats had their clown show. Now it's time for Republicans to have their clown show. No need to pass legislation that will benefit Americans.
 
dcsports said:
The procedural process we're discussing is handing off the articles to the Senate. That is absolutely her duty as the chief administrative officer of the House. This jumps into very questionable territory, and if she really intended to hold the articles, would be a constitutional issue that could go to the judiciary. It's no different than the Speaker of the House or Senate Majority leader refusing to send an approved bill to the other chamber or the president. It's going against the express will of the legislative body they work for - and isn't something that that leader has the right to do.

I don't care if she appoints managers. It's the agreed upon process, but the senate could vote on another one. It would show Pelosi to be the partisan and divisive one. The senate could then treat it like a civil case where the plaintiff refused to show.
Click to expand...
I only care that she fulfills the constitutional duties proscribed to impeach because that was what was voted on. Whether that constitutional duty requires she formally transfer or not, I don't know. Once that minimal obligation is fulfilled, she needs only please the majority of members or be willing to suffer the consequences of not pleasing them. Personally, I would prefer she not validate a sham trial with the presence of house managers, but the current house rules require she appoint before she transfers. She is in a better position to determine the pros and cons on not participating in the fraudulent exercise. We do agree that if date is set for a trial, and one of the parties does not show up, charges can be dismissed. They will either be dismissed or he will be acquitted regardless. Just don't see any point to marching proudly into McConnell's ambush.
 
Iowa voters are almost equally divided over the House's move to impeach President Trump and drawn by party lines, but not so with Independents according to a new CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll.

The survey, released late Saturday, found that 45 percent of registered Iowa voters disapprove of the House impeachment of Trump, while 43 percent support it. The opinions divide strongly along partisan lines, with 87 percent of Democrats supporting impeachment and 90 percent of Republican respondents opposing it.

Forty-eight percent of independent respondents said they disapproved the House's move to impeach Trump while 39 percent said they approved it.
Click to expand...

Iowa voters split on Trump impeachment, poll shows | TheHill
 
trixare4kids said:
Iowa voters are almost equally divided over the House's move to impeach President Trump and drawn by party lines,
Click to expand...

Republican House members knew they could sit and do nothing and it would pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom