Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Nancy Pelosi thread


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Insomniac said:

I understand your position, you place a high value on the rule of law and want a society based on it. That's a nice dream, but unfortunately that's all it is anymore.

If one side proves they do not care, at all, about the rule of law what's the value of the other side sgnalinging that they do? 

 

.

 

Actually it’s of tremendous value. Abraham Lincoln addressed this in his first inaugural speech, in attempting to answer the question: why was necessary for the union to maintain sovereignty over the seceding states? Why not just let them go? His superb answer was that we had to prove that a lawful democracy can exist in this world, that our form of government is not a temporary aberration but can be lasting. 

The same principle applies here. We have a political party, the Republicans, who MAY decide to ignore the law (I say “may” because they haven’t been put to the ultimate test yet)- it is therefore the responsibility of the rest of us to pursue the law no matter where it takes us- that is what Lincoln demanded that we do. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Mister Blutarsky: zero-point-zero.

Yeah, she sure zinged Trump.  That was a doozy. In the meantime, we get to keep a dangerously incompetent and historically corrupt president in office for two more years.  But wow what a burn.

If only there were some remedy available in situations where a President commits crimes... Mitch McConnell has destroyed a number of procedural norms for partisan gain, but he has not destroyed a

20 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Actually it’s of tremendous value. Abraham Lincoln addressed this in his first inaugural speech, in attempting to answer the question: why was necessary for the union to maintain sovereignty over the seceding states? Why not just let them go? His superb answer was that we had to prove that a lawful democracy can exist in this world, that our form of government is not a temporary aberration but can be lasting. 

The same principle applies here. We have a political party, the Republicans, who MAY decide to ignore the law (I say “may” because they haven’t been put to the ultimate test yet)- it is therefore the responsibility of the rest of us to pursue the law no matter where it takes us- that is what Lincoln demanded that we do. 

 

If you don't realize the GOP will fail the test, you've failed a test yourself.

Lincoln's argument that the Civil war needed to be fought was certainly correct. It was necessary to fight the war to save the Union and eliminate slavery. As I recall one of the things he did to put down the rebellion was to suspend habeas corpus. OTOH if the Union had lost the war it would have all been for nothing. Lincoln didn't triumph because of respect fot rule of law but because of the efforts of the people in the Union Army and Navy who defeated the traitors who supported the confederacy at a high cost in blood.

Let's suppose  the House impeaches Trump (on party lines) and the Senate acquits him on party lines. The GOP base will claim it proves Trump was innocent no matter how obviously it's not true.. Is it more likely the GOP loses the next election? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Insomniac said:

 

Let's suppose  the House impeaches Trump (on party lines) and the Senate acquits him on party lines. The GOP base will claim it proves Trump was innocent no matter how obviously it's not true.. Is it more likely the GOP loses the next election? 

Who knows? I would say it is. But I’m only guessing. Nobody can predict how it would turn out. 

I don’t think it matters. There are things more important than the next election. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reasons to impeach cannot be for any short term gain or loss. Reasons to impeach are also for the good of our country, not today, but for the rest of our existence but also to demonstrate to the rest of the world that we walk the walk. We, as Americans, should demand our government to do its job and we cannot have a person openly defying the laws and all we do is shrug. We, as Americans, should be embarrassed by Trump and what he is doing as our elected official. It’s a shame others are okay with this bum. 

I think we’d all have a different reaction if Nixon had happened 100 years ago. But, there are people, Trump himself, who were alive when the Nixon stuff went down. How can those same people not see the similarities here? It’s... weird. 

Edited by Mario Kart
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

Yes indeed...like getting up everyday and being grateful for what each one of us has. 

If we allow a man as corrupt as Donald Trump apparently is to be our head of state without removal or punishment, we will quickly lose everything that we’re grateful for. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I know you dislike her politics.But can you acknowledge her toughness and effectiveness? 

Nope, I’ve thought she was a terrible person since 03. And ramming through a party line vote on impeachment isn’t being effective at all. Quite the opposite actually. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The GOP apologists are going to LOVE this comment, but it's my estimation that she screwed this thing up in almost every way possible.  She fought the inquiry when it was obvious what needed to be done (for reasons we call all argue about...my personal opinion was she was not wanting to make the tough/unpopular decision and waiting on the electorate to say it was ok).  In doing so left the House with two options:

1.  Do the investigation half assed and not engage the courts to get them on their side so they could get it crammed in before election season.
2.  Do the investigation properly which would carry it well into election season.

Those initial delays were the writing on the wall IMO.  The inquiries should have begun in March at the latest, starting with Stormy Daniels and campaign finance violations.  That would still have been going on when Trump did the unthinkable and committed abuse of power acts for the whole world to see and that could have been added at that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Commish said:

The GOP apologists are going to LOVE this comment, but it's my estimation that she screwed this thing up in almost every way possible.  She fought the inquiry when it was obvious what needed to be done (for reasons we call all argue about...my personal opinion was she was not wanting to make the tough/unpopular decision and waiting on the electorate to say it was ok).  In doing so left the House with two options:

1.  Do the investigation half assed and not engage the courts to get them on their side so they could get it crammed in before election season.
2.  Do the investigation properly which would carry it well into election season.

Those initial delays were the writing on the wall IMO.  The inquiries should have begun in March at the latest, starting with Stormy Daniels and campaign finance violations.  That would still have been going on when Trump did the unthinkable and committed abuse of power acts for the whole world to see and that could have been added at that point.

For the record, I disagreed with this approach from the beginning and I still disagree with it now.  The Ukraine thing was an unambiguous abuse of office that even the simplest person could understand.  It didn't require a massive amount of investigation or explanation.  It was clean and uncomplicated.  If Republicans were not willing to do the right thing in this case, they were never going to do the right thing no matter how you structured this exercise.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

For the record, I disagreed with this approach from the beginning and I still disagree with it now.  The Ukraine thing was an unambiguous abuse of office that even the simplest person could understand.  It didn't require a massive amount of investigation or explanation.  It was clean and uncomplicated.  If Republicans were not willing to do the right thing in this case, they were never going to do the right thing no matter how you structured this exercise.  

Can you clarify?  Which approach?  The one of starting inquiry as soon as it was obvious it was necessary or the one that Pelosi actually decided to take?

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, The Commish said:

The GOP apologists are going to LOVE this comment, but it's my estimation that she screwed this thing up in almost every way possible.  She fought the inquiry when it was obvious what needed to be done (for reasons we call all argue about...my personal opinion was she was not wanting to make the tough/unpopular decision and waiting on the electorate to say it was ok).  In doing so left the House with two options:

1.  Do the investigation half assed and not engage the courts to get them on their side so they could get it crammed in before election season.
2.  Do the investigation properly which would carry it well into election season.

Those initial delays were the writing on the wall IMO.  The inquiries should have begun in March at the latest, starting with Stormy Daniels and campaign finance violations.  That would still have been going on when Trump did the unthinkable and committed abuse of power acts for the whole world to see and that could have been added at that point.

I think Ditka Butkus actually raised an underlying lurking issue in these Articles (in an impeachment thread) and that is that they do not explicitly state a crime. I personally do think they read like a crime, and even could be used as a shell of an actual indictment. But, the problem for me is that yes the Mueller report itself explicitly laid out at least a dozen impeachable crimes - but because of the OLC memo it could not be stated as such. So it was the same bridge. It is really complex. One problem is that Russia and Ukraine (the scandals) are both features of a serious current problem of the digital age - election assistance across borders by means of media influence. - Pelosi & Co. fell into a trap of trying to work through witnesses and gaining evidence and they were absolutely stymied with Russia. In retrospect, they could have gone straight to the phase in House Judiciary with the academics - these were crimes, they are stated as crimes, further evidence of crimes is forthcoming with Stone's trial, etc. But by doing things the way they did them, because of the procedural delays, Trump felt secured after Mueller's testimony, so much so that he went right into criming in Ukraine. 

The Courts are still a problem as well. The DC Circuit is just now being briefed on the release of the grand jury materials from Mueller. There's another case winding about the evidence behind the Mueller report that the DOJ is withholding. It's absolute madness, they're just treating it like it's an accounting case or something, and that's the case even though the district courts, even Trump and Bush appointed judges, have been regularly ruling against Trump.

Pelosi has gained my respect in a number of ways throughout this process. In many ways, though I have long been a proponent of term limits, I have been glad that experienced hands like her and Hoyer have been running things. I can say that perhaps they fell into a lull of doing things the way things have been done traditionally with most presidents, but with the whistleblower complaint the veil finally fell and they got real. 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, The Commish said:

And to add to my post, now considering not sending the articles?  Come on!

I really think this would be a  mistake. My guess is this is a short delay until they hammer out the rules, which makes sense, but actually truly holding would be a big mistake. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I think Ditka Butkus actually raised an underlying lurking issue in these Articles (in an impeachment thread) and that is that they do not explicitly state a crime. I personally do think they read like a crime, and even could be used as a shell of an actual indictment. But, the problem for me is that yes the Mueller report itself laid out at least a dozen impeachable crimes - but because of the OLC memo it could not be stated as such. So it was the same bridge. It is really complex. One problem is that Russia and Ukraine (the scandals) are both features of a serious current problem of the digital age - election assistance across borders by means of media influence. - Pelosi & Co. fell into a trap of trying to work through witnesses and gaining evidence and they were absolutely stymied with Russia. In retrospect, they could have gone straight to the phase in House Judiciary with the academics - these were crimes, they are stated as crimes, further evidence of crimes is forthcoming with Stone's trial, etc. But by doing things the way they did them, because of the procedural delays, Trump felt secured after Mueller's testimony, so much so that he went right into criming in Ukraine. 

The Courts are still a problem as well. The DC Circuit is just now being briefed on the release of the grand jury materials from Mueller. There's another case winding about the evidence behind the Mueller report that the DOJ is withholding. It's absolute madness, they're just treating it like it's an accounting case or something, and that's the case even though the district courts, even Trump and Bush appointed judges, have been regularly ruling against Trump.

Pelosi has gained my respect in a number of ways throughout this process. In many ways, though I have long been a proponent of term limits, I have been glad that experienced hands like her and Hoyer have been running things. I can say that perhaps they fell into a lull of doing things the way things have been done traditionally with most presidents, but with the whistleblower complaint the veil finally fell and they got real. 

Don't get me wrong.  I understand the problems and hold ups.  However, I believe all of those things should have been taken into consideration when making these decisions in order to avoid the messes that we are now in.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

The classy New York Post chooses to attack Pelosi’s clothes: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/media/nancy-pelosi-swamp-mistress-new-york-post-impeachment.amp

Not sexist at all. 

meh...."orange blob" and "cheeto" etc....any people doing any of that are all cut from the same cloth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

meh...."orange blob" and "cheeto" etc....any people doing any of that are all cut from the same cloth.

I don’t agree, because it’s done far more often to women, and particularly to powerful women. It’s sexism 101. 

Also Commish while I don’t disagree with at least some of your critiques listed above, I think you’re nitpicking, and not seeing the big picture. The big picture as I see it is that Pelosi managed, for the umpteenth time in her career, to hold her people together during a difficult time and achieve her goal. If you think this is something anyone could have done, I offer you the examples of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell during the first 2 years of Trump’s Presidency when they were determined to dismantle Obamacare and failed utterly. Pelosi has been faced with just as many divisions in her party as Ryan and McConnell had to deal with but she has proved far more adept. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

  If Republicans were not willing to do the right thing in this case, they were never going to do the right thing no matter how you structured this exercise.  

We already knew Republicans weren't going to do the right thing no matter what.  So why was it important to have something clean and uncomplicated?  Why not just throw everything in there and send like 30 articles of impeachment to the Senate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I don’t agree, because it’s done far more often to women, and particularly to powerful women. It’s sexism 101. 

Also Commish while I don’t disagree with at least some of your critiques listed above, I think you’re nitpicking, and not seeing the big picture. The big picture as I see it is that Pelosi managed, for the umpteenth time in her career, to hold her people together during a difficult time and achieve her goal. If you think this is something anyone could have done, I offer you the examples of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell during the first 2 years of Trump’s Presidency when they were determined to dismantle Obamacare and failed utterly. Pelosi has been faced with just as many divisions in her party as Ryan and McConnell had to deal with but she has proved far more adept. 

You'd probably have a point and I'd probably agree with this if she'd started when it was obvious that it needed to be started.  Instead, she waited until the electorate had to drag them along.  The Dem constituents made it crystal clear what was expected of them, THEN she began moving on it.  I don't see it all that difficult to keep people in line when they know their jobs are on the line :shrug: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Commish said:

You'd probably have a point and I'd probably agree with this if she'd started when it was obvious that it needed to be started.  Instead, she waited until the electorate had to drag them along.  The Dem constituents made it crystal clear what was expected of them, THEN she began moving on it.  I don't see it all that difficult to keep people in line when they know their jobs are on the line :shrug: 

I don’t think that’s  nearly as clear as you’re making it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get Pelosi's delay tactic which Democrats seem to be on board with.  Does Pelosi really thinks she has pull over the Senate?  The whole tactic just reeks of more political maneuvering.  Seems like she is taking a losing hand and shoving more money in when everyone knows she is beat.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

We already knew Republicans weren't going to do the right thing no matter what.  So why was it important to have something clean and uncomplicated?  Why not just throw everything in there and send like 30 articles of impeachment to the Senate?

They should have been doing this from the start as each impeachable violation comes up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

I don't get Pelosi's delay tactic which Democrats seem to be on board with.  Does Pelosi really thinks she has pull over the Senate?  The whole tactic just reeks of more political maneuvering.  Seems like she is taking a losing hand and shoving more money in when everyone knows she is beat.  

Hmm...

It is political maneuvering.

And it's hard to say she has a losing hand as she just guided the House to a historic vote to impeach Trump on both counts put before the house.  That's a historic win for her, as speaker.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, adonis said:

Hmm...

It is political maneuvering.

And it's hard to say she has a losing hand as she just guided the House to a historic vote to impeach Trump on both counts put before the house.  That's a historic win for her, as speaker.

Not a win at all.  This is like getting a grand jury indictment, which is always easy to do.  If you don't think you can get a conviction, it is a colossal waste of time to proceed and you look foolish and vindictive.  She is pretty much admitting as much by this tactic.  This is why prosecutor usually only proceed with charges if they are a better than 90 percent certain they can convince a jury to convict.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:  total freakin chaos. No plan. Just stumbling around in the dark.

Pelosi: but blah bhuh um bluh blah.

Pelosi herself did not definitively rule out the possibility that she might never send the articles to the Senate, though she indicated that she would when they agree on procedures.

Trump: bring it on, Nancy.

Trump, meanwhile, spent the morning tweeting about how he wants Pelosi to send over the articles to the Senate, and has made it clear he looks forward to an acquittal there.

Bluff called. Is it time to fold? That would be an epic disaster. She's in a no win situation put in there by herself & Schiff. They lose no matter what they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Not a win at all.  This is like getting a grand jury indictment, which is always easy to do.  If you don't think you can get a conviction, it is a colossal waste of time to proceed and you look foolish and vindictive.  She is pretty much admitting as much by this tactic.  This is why prosecutor usually only proceed with charges if they are a better than 90 percent certain they can convince a jury to convict.  

She wants a fair trial, where witnesses are called.  Why is this so problematic?

The Senate is passed an indictment on two counts.  Why would they not have a fair trial, where first-hand witnesses are called, and settle the matter openly and fairly?

Seriously.  What's a legitimate reason for not conducting a fair and full trial in the senate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, lod001 said:

:lol:  total freakin chaos. No plan. Just stumbling around in the dark.

Pelosi: but blah bhuh um bluh blah.

Pelosi herself did not definitively rule out the possibility that she might never send the articles to the Senate, though she indicated that she would when they agree on procedures.

Trump: bring it on, Nancy.

Trump, meanwhile, spent the morning tweeting about how he wants Pelosi to send over the articles to the Senate, and has made it clear he looks forward to an acquittal there.

Bluff called. Is it time to fold? That would be an epic disaster. She's in a no win situation put in there by herself & Schiff. They lose no matter what they do.

Is it a bluff if she has never actually said what people are speculating about?

 

Edited by sho nuff
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, adonis said:

She wants a fair trial, where witnesses are called.  Why is this so problematic?

The Senate is passed an indictment on two counts.  Why would they not have a fair trial, where first-hand witnesses are called, and settle the matter openly and fairly?

Seriously.  What's a legitimate reason for not conducting a fair and full trial in the senate?

Hadn't the House already called the first hand witnesses and made the case public?  The House Deomcrats had complete control over the process and got to say who would testify and who wouldn't. If the case needed more evidence, why are the submitting half-baked charges to the Senate to figure out.   The fact the Trump may actually get to present a real defense this time around makes it fair.  Pelosi had her chance and apparently failed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, adonis said:

She wants a fair trial, where witnesses are called.  Why is this so problematic?

The Senate is passed an indictment on two counts.  Why would they not have a fair trial, where first-hand witnesses are called, and settle the matter openly and fairly?

Seriously.  What's a legitimate reason for not conducting a fair and full trial in the senate?

Because it’s not her decision to make.  She is holding the political process hostage.  

She’s taking a wild political gamble and this has nothing to do with a “fair trial” and everything to do with politics and the upcoming elections. 

Edited by shader
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, lod001 said:

:lol:  total freakin chaos. No plan. Just stumbling around in the dark.

Pelosi: but blah bhuh um bluh blah.

Pelosi herself did not definitively rule out the possibility that she might never send the articles to the Senate, though she indicated that she would when they agree on procedures.

Trump: bring it on, Nancy.

Trump, meanwhile, spent the morning tweeting about how he wants Pelosi to send over the articles to the Senate, and has made it clear he looks forward to an acquittal there.

Bluff called. Is it time to fold? That would be an epic disaster. She's in a no win situation put in there by herself & Schiff. They lose no matter what they do.

I can’t imagine she’d never send the articles to the senate.  That would be preposterously stupid.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Hadn't the House already called the first hand witnesses and made the case public?  The House Deomcrats had complete control over the process and got to say who would testify and who wouldn't. If the case needed more evidence, why are the submitting half-baked charges to the Senate to figure out.   The fact the Trump may actually get to present a real defense this time around makes it fair.  Pelosi had her chance and apparently failed.  

The House subpoenaed multiple witnesses Trump blocked from testifying who had more first hand knowledge of what was going on.  Democrats didn't have "complete control" because they couldn't force folks they subpoenaed to show up, due to Trump's obstruction of congress.

The charges aren't half baked.  The evidence presented in the house's investigation was sufficient to impeach, but the case would've been stronger (perhaps) if Trump had allowed the other witnesses to testify.

That's the kind of thing that should happen during a senate trial.  Call the first hand witnesses and get them on the record.  Perform a fair and full trial.  That's what law and order and justice calls for.  Anything short of that will be a sham. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, shader said:

Because it’s not her decision to make.  She is holding the political process hostage.  

She’s taking a wild political gamble and this has nothing to do with a “fair trial” and everything to do with politics and the upcoming elections. 

I'm not saying it was her decision to make, I'm saying she wants a fair trial, as does much of the public.  She's not holding any process hostage.  Impeachment just happened yesterday.

If McConnell today said he'd oversee a fair trial where Democrats could call any relevant witnesses to the impeachable offenses, Pelosi would have no problem.

The bottom line is that Pelosi wants more information related to the impeachable offenses to be public, and McConnell wants to minimize any additional information coming from this process.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, lod001 said:

:lol:  total freakin chaos. No plan. Just stumbling around in the dark.

Pelosi: but blah bhuh um bluh blah.

Pelosi herself did not definitively rule out the possibility that she might never send the articles to the Senate, though she indicated that she would when they agree on procedures.

Trump: bring it on, Nancy.

Trump, meanwhile, spent the morning tweeting about how he wants Pelosi to send over the articles to the Senate, and has made it clear he looks forward to an acquittal there.

Bluff called. Is it time to fold? That would be an epic disaster. She's in a no win situation put in there by herself & Schiff. They lose no matter what they do.

I think your interpretation may be just a little off here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, adonis said:

The House subpoenaed multiple witnesses Trump blocked from testifying who had more first hand knowledge of what was going on.  Democrats didn't have "complete control" because they couldn't force folks they subpoenaed to show up, due to Trump's obstruction of congress.

The charges aren't half baked.  The evidence presented in the house's investigation was sufficient to impeach, but the case would've been stronger (perhaps) if Trump had allowed the other witnesses to testify.

That's the kind of thing that should happen during a senate trial.  Call the first hand witnesses and get them on the record.  Perform a fair and full trial.  That's what law and order and justice calls for.  Anything short of that will be a sham. 

Perhaps the Democrats should have waited and got courts to force them to testify.  Pelosi rushed it.  She had her chance....and failed if she now believes those witnesses were essential. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jon_mx said:

Perhaps the Democrats should have waited and got courts to force them to testify.  Pelosi rushed it.  She had her chance....and failed if she now believes those witnesses were essential. 

Why should she have had to have the courts force folks to respond to congressional oversight of the executive branch, performed according to constitutional authority?

She didn't rush it.  She gave Trump plenty of time to comply.  He obstructed congress.  That's an impeachable offense, and he was impeached for it.  Now, it's in the hands of the senate to conduct a fair trial.

Why are you not advocating that a fair trial take place?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, adonis said:

Why should she have had to have the courts force folks to respond to congressional oversight of the executive branch, performed according to constitutional authority?

She didn't rush it.  She gave Trump plenty of time to comply.  He obstructed congress.  That's an impeachable offense, and he was impeached for it.  Now, it's in the hands of the senate to conduct a fair trial.

Why are you not advocating that a fair trial take place?

Part of the due process is to adjudicate the powers of Congress to subpoena witness vs. Executive privilege.  Trump has every right to challenge unsettled law and these cases are going through the courts now.  Pelosi should have waited until the courts ruled before determining Trump is obstructing.  Really dumb. Imho.  It is like she just figured out who is in charge of the Senate.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jon_mx said:
11 minutes ago, adonis said:

Why should she have had to have the courts force folks to respond to congressional oversight of the executive branch, performed according to constitutional authority?

She didn't rush it.  She gave Trump plenty of time to comply.  He obstructed congress.  That's an impeachable offense, and he was impeached for it.  Now, it's in the hands of the senate to conduct a fair trial.

Why are you not advocating that a fair trial take place?

Part of the due process is to adjudicate the powers of Congress to subpoena witness vs. Executive privilege.  Trump has every right to challenge unsettled law and these cases are going through the courts now.  Pelosi should have waited until the courts ruled before determining Trump is obstructing.  Really dumb. Imho.  It is like she just figured out who is in charge of the Senate.  

I'll ask again, why are you not advocating that a fair trial take place in the senate?  

Why should the American public not expect the senate to carry out a full and fair trial into the merits of the impeachment charges in the senate?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, adonis said:

I'm not saying it was her decision to make, I'm saying she wants a fair trial, as does much of the public.  She's not holding any process hostage.  Impeachment just happened yesterday.

If McConnell today said he'd oversee a fair trial where Democrats could call any relevant witnesses to the impeachable offenses, Pelosi would have no problem.

The bottom line is that Pelosi wants more information related to the impeachable offenses to be public, and McConnell wants to minimize any additional information coming from this process.

This isn’t Pelosi vs McConnell.  Her job is done.  She and the house impeached him.  Her job is now to send it to the Senate.  I’m sure she will, and you’re right, this was just done yesterday.....but her feelings on how she wants the Senate to proceed are irrelevant, as she’s not a Senator.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, adonis said:

I'll ask again, why are you not advocating that a fair trial take place in the senate?  

Why should the American public not expect the senate to carry out a full and fair trial into the merits of the impeachment charges in the senate?  

It is totally fair Democrats got to control the first half of and make the best possible case they could for impeachment.  What more do you want.  Just because they presented a half-baked case before giving it to the Senate does not make it unfair now.  Nancy is essentially admitting failure and asking for a do over. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, shader said:

This isn’t Pelosi vs McConnell.  Her job is done.  She and the house impeached him.  Her job is now to send it to the Senate.  I’m sure she will, and you’re right, this was just done yesterday.....but her feelings on how she wants the Senate to proceed are irrelevant, as she’s not a Senator.

Her job is not done.  The House is still basically the prosecution in this case and Pelosi will appoint the "Impeachment Managers" i.e the prosecutors, some of whom at least are expected to be House members.  It's perfectly within her purview to try and ensure that she is sending her people into as equitable a situation as possible.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jon_mx said:
14 minutes ago, adonis said:

I'll ask again, why are you not advocating that a fair trial take place in the senate?  

Why should the American public not expect the senate to carry out a full and fair trial into the merits of the impeachment charges in the senate?  

It is totally fair Democrats got to control the first half of and make the best possible case they could for impeachment.  What more do you want.  Just because they presented a half-baked case before giving it to the Senate does not make it unfair now.  Nancy is essentially admitting failure and asking for a do over. 

I'll ask for a third time.

Why should the senate not conduct a fair trial, as should be expected based on their constitutional duty?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, adonis said:

I'll ask for a third time.

Why should the senate not conduct a fair trial, as should be expected based on their constitutional duty?

It is a fair trial.  The arguement that this is unfair is laughable.  Nancy closed her case with insufficient evidence.  She had the opportunity and as long as she wanted to present a full and complete case to convict Trump.  She failed and it is beyond stupid to expect the other side to do a better job than you did.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jon_mx said:

It is a fair trial.  The arguement that this is unfair is laughable.  Nancy closed her case with insufficient evidence.  She had the opportunity and as long as she wanted to present a full and complete case to convict Trump.  She failed and it is beyond stupid to expect the other side to do a better job than you did.  

So in a court case, only testimony from those deposed during the grand juries are used?

Is that what you're suggesting, that it's normal when pursuing an indictment to have that work be the ENTIRETY of the trial?  Is that the judicial system, as you understand it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...