• 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!

What Will Mitch & Lindsey Do?

WillyPete said:
The general public will know it when they see it, or a reasonable approximation.

What do you think an evenhanded trial would be?
Click to expand...

I think they should mark the Articles with a big red "I" and send it back to the House to complete its work. Its incomplete. Short of that, they should hear the case put on by the House managers, hear any rebuttal and take a vote. There clealy isnt enough there to convict which is why the dems are demanding more witnesses. They want more witnesses they can call them in the House, get their **** together and bring a proper impeachment.
 
mrjurrs said:
Nope, there is a separate oath the senators will have to take that promises impartial justice. Political impartiality no, truth impartiality yes.
Click to expand...

Sure. Like that is oath is going to make them suddenly become impartial.
 
Fletch said:
I think they should mark the Articles with a big red "I" and send it back to the House to complete its work. Its incomplete. Short of that, they should hear the case put on by the House managers, hear any rebuttal and take a vote. There clealy isnt enough there to convict which is why the dems are demanding more witnesses. They want more witnesses they can call them in the House, get their **** together and bring a proper impeachment.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't you prefer witnesses in the Senate, where Trump enjoys more support?

There is precedent for witnesses in the Senate. Why the resistance?

This is Trump's big opportunity to set the record straight, but he (amongst others) is acting like he's afraid of the truth, while claiming it is on his side.

How do you rationalize that?
 
I don't see a problem with having an anonymous vote count in the senate for the impeachment.

The only thing it will do is lift the burden of having to look partial to the public off the senators' backs. It can only make for a more objective and impartial trial. If Trump really is not guilty and the evidence really is not there, I don't see what Republicans have to fear from such a proposal.
 
Obscurity said:
Will they take the oath and as such denigrate and soil their positions? Will they recuse?
Click to expand...

They've already taken the oath; they just don't give a fat flying fig about no ****ing oath, because they've already said so. They're voting to acquit Trump, no matter what the evidence shows, because they're special, by golly!
 
Fletch said:
I think they should mark the Articles with a big red "I" and send it back to the House to complete its work. Its incomplete. Short of that, they should hear the case put on by the House managers, hear any rebuttal and take a vote. There clealy isnt enough there to convict which is why the dems are demanding more witnesses. They want more witnesses they can call them in the House, get their **** together and bring a proper impeachment.
Click to expand...

If prosecutors have enough evidence to charge someone, and then more evidence becomes available in the meantime before the actual trial begins, would that evidence not be allowed in the trial?

Why is this different?
 
Robertinfremont said:
Who among Democrats is impartial? The man who quit the party over this?
Click to expand...

I can tell you who among the Republicans is impartial; the man, Justin Amash, who quit the party over this.
 
swing_voter said:
Why recluse? It's a 100% partisan. Dems vote impeach, reps vote no.

It's not legit. It's a circus. It's a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.
Click to expand...

I said the same when Bill Clinton was impeached. Totally insulting to the intelligence of our American citizens.
 
Cardinal said:
Republicans are tasked by their base with giving Democrats the middle finger. That's all there is to any of this.

The Republican Party is purely grievance-based.
Click to expand...

Amen. Their idea of governing is owning the liberals and they don't care about the cost to themselves or the country.
 
Fletch said:
There is no requirement or expectation that they be 'objective jurors.'
Click to expand...

Except that they are now under oath to "... do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.’ "

So it's A-okay for the entire Republican party to commit perjury now? Perhaps Republican senators should be impeached; after all, Clinton was impeached for committing perjury.

Then again, Clinton was a Democrat, and committing perjury is only okay for Republicans, amirite? :roll:
 
DiAnna said:
I can tell you who among the Republicans is impartial; the man, Justin Amash, who quit the party over this.
Click to expand...

He was thinking of leaving even before Trump.
 
ludin said:
yep there was more bi-partisnship support against impeachment than for it.
the impeachment vote was pretty much a partisan vote.

it was so disgusting that several members of the democratic party couldn't even stomach how partisan it was and one of them quit the party over it.
Click to expand...

He quit because he wasn't going to win the primary. There was also a switch the other way. Maybe you could stick to the topic without making stuff up.
 
ludin said:
perjury is a high crime and a federal felony.
there was evidence that he did commit perjury.
Click to expand...

Not enough to even convince a bunch of Republicans. Ten Rs joined the Dems to acquit on that count, 55-45.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Me.... I was a democrat at one time.

I'm just anti modern day radical Democrat, and that is what your party is made of today........radicals.

You have all the answers, right up to when you actually have control, and then you guys end up ****ing things up as bad or worse than the republicans..
Click to expand...

You have no idea that calling the Dems radical just tells us what an extreme rightwinger you are. Know thyself and own it because, again, you aint foolin' nobody.
 
ataraxia said:
If prosecutors have enough evidence to charge someone, and then more evidence becomes available in the meantime before the actual trial begins, would that evidence not be allowed in the trial?

Why is this different?
Click to expand...

Nothing. What they are doing here is demanding a search for more evidence, as in calling witnesses they should have called.
 
Jay59 said:
The Democrats were tasked by their base to give Trump, the Constitution and the Rule of Law the middle finger. That makes a sort of symmetry.
Click to expand...

Republicans have been ordered by the Cult of Dirtbag Donnie to call his lies, truth and crimes, just Dirtbag's jokes.
 
Fletch said:
Then the answer is for the House to call these witnesses and wait for the courts to rule on EC. They didnt want to do that. Not sure what stops the president from preventing them from testifying before the senate. If Bolton is called and Trumps lawyers declare EC, I dont think he has to give testimony.
Click to expand...

Not sure but I think EC means executive privilege somehow. In any case, Bolton can ignore any order not to testify. Several witnesses did that in the House.
 
veritas1 said:
This is hilarious. Was Schiff impartial when he simply made up the dialogue between Trump and Zelensky and entered it into the record? Not only was he totally partisan but also a fact witness as he had met with the WB and knew who he was. Naturally, like most everything else, he lied about that. If any person in the history of Congress was a poster boy for recusal, it is Schiff.

The GOP should call for a vote in short order based solely on the laughable, flimsy and unConstitutional articles that Nancy finally dislodged from her backside and sent over. End this circus and let the Dems wring their hands from now to 2025.
Click to expand...

Oh, you kidder. Even you know he never represented that as a quote but as a very apt representation of what Donnie Dirtbag tried to pull---an organized crime shakedown.
 
digitusmedius said:
Maybe not but you are choc-a-bloc stuffed with delusions.
Click to expand...

The only delusion is that Trump is going anywhere. It's so funny watching the Dems self destruct while Trump reels off success after success. When liberals lose, America wins.
 
digitusmedius said:
Oh, you kidder. Even you know he never represented that as a quote but as a very apt representation of what Donnie Dirtbag tried to pull---an organized crime shakedown.
Click to expand...

Right, the REAL conversation didn't imply anything they asserted so Schiffhead simply made up something that sounded better. He's makes Trump look like Mother Teresa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom