Impeachment - New Thread

SoxIlliniRob wrote:He is, but I think I've become super cynical because it just doesn't even phase me anymore.  He's just a lowlife and I just shrug when I see him.

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:He is, but I think I've become super cynical because it just doesn't even phase me anymore.  He's just a lowlife and I just shrug when I see him.

I see that your congresswoman is undecided.  Your district is swing for sure.  They say mine is too, but Sean Casten's victory was by a much wider margin, and Jeanne Ives is going to probably come out of the Republican primary and she's so awful, I don't think she's got a shot.  Hillary won our district decisively.

blondy28 wrote:So I've heard that it takes 51 votes to call a witness in the senate trial, so the GOP would be able to deny all the Dem's witness while calling their own witnesses.  I think, though, that you can appeal to the judge (Roberts) on the ruling, and I suspect that he will be a pretty fair guy.  Not sure how McConnell and Lindsey take the oath about impartiality after the comments they've publically made...especially McConnell, who said he's coordinating the defense with the White House.  That would kinda be like the defendent in a criminal trial coordinating his defense with the jury.  

If recusals are handled in government in the same manner as they are in condo world.  When I have a question on recusal, I call the attorney, and she will tell me how it should be done, but there's no recourse if the board member refuses to recuse.  I would imagine the same would apply.  And I would think it would come up and the dems would request recusal and John Roberts will rule (again, I'm assuming that once the trial starts, it's a basic trial.)

There's some strategy whereby the house votes to impeach and they don't immediately send it to the senate.  I've heard that the Parnas guy may have a story to tell, and that may take a couple months to negotiate.  I guess that makes me think of another question.  If the dems don't get 51 voting in favor of their witnesses, can they just submit an affadavit, let's say from John Bolton, and have it read into the record without having him testify?  If they could, I would think that would compel the GOP to allow him to testify so that they can at least cross.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:So I've heard that it takes 51 votes to call a witness in the senate trial, so the GOP would be able to deny all the Dem's witness while calling their own witnesses.  I think, though, that you can appeal to the judge (Roberts) on the ruling, and I suspect that he will be a pretty fair guy.  Not sure how McConnell and Lindsey take the oath about impartiality after the comments they've publically made...especially McConnell, who said he's coordinating the defense with the White House.  That would kinda be like the defendent in a criminal trial coordinating his defense with the jury.  

If recusals are handled in government in the same manner as they are in condo world.  When I have a question on recusal, I call the attorney, and she will tell me how it should be done, but there's no recourse if the board member refuses to recuse.  I would imagine the same would apply.  And I would think it would come up and the dems would request recusal and John Roberts will rule (again, I'm assuming that once the trial starts, it's a basic trial.)

There's some strategy whereby the house votes to impeach and they don't immediately send it to the senate.  I've heard that the Parnas guy may have a story to tell, and that may take a couple months to negotiate.  I guess that makes me think of another question.  If the dems don't get 51 voting in favor of their witnesses, can they just submit an affadavit, let's say from John Bolton, and have it read into the record without having him testify?  If they could, I would think that would compel the GOP to allow him to testify so that they can at least cross.

I'm not sure they can really pull off calling witnesses and denying the Dems of the same.  That'd be viewed pretty negatively by the general public and I think there are senators that wouldn't stand for that.  If they try that, Pelosi will just pull back and continue with the House handling of this thing, interviewing more witnesses, issuing subpoenas to Bolton, Mulvaney, Rudy, etc.  shit, they might even bring in Parnas.

alohafri wrote:

Michael Steele - "Ok Trump's impeachment has just been compared to the trial of Jesus--yeah, that one. I'm going to have another gin & tonic now. A little less tonic this time."

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:

Michael Steele - "Ok Trump's impeachment has just been compared to the trial of Jesus--yeah, that one. I'm going to have another gin & tonic now. A little less tonic this time."

That sounds like Michael Steele.  Funny how many Repubs are against this idiot president if they're outside of Congress, but Congress will not dare cross that line.  This is a cross they'll have to bear for the remainders of their careers, and I promise you that every idiot that has supported him will have to wear that forever.