• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Donald Impeachment

I got to see a little bit of it. Did any body ask why the ambassador to the EU was so involved in diplomacy with Ukraine? I saw at the end Nunes claimed Sondland wasn’t part of an irregular channel but his position makes it irregular.
 
Seems like an obvious issue to me. Did he explain how he got roped into all this in the first place? Where any other ambassadors to European countries involved?
 
Sondland was by far the worst witness so far. Probably because he was trying not to perjure himself given previous swings and misses compared to other provided testimony
 
Deacfreak07 said:
What is stopping McConnell from just throwing out the trial altogether? He would church it up with the veneer of getting back to work for veterans or some bullshit.
Click to expand...

McConnell is not the presiding officer of the Senate during a presidential impeachment trial; CJ John Roberts is. Roberts cares to much about his legacy to allow a trial to be stalled indefinitely.
 
KitchinDeac said:
McConnell is not the presiding officer of the Senate during a presidential impeachment trial; CJ John Roberts is. Roberts cares to much about his legacy to allow a trial to be stalled indefinitely.
Click to expand...

I’d imagine that while this is true once the process starts that McConnell retains the right to begin (or not begin) the process right?
 
If the President is impeached by the House is the Senate not required to hold a trial, or do they have to vote on it (or have it not come up for a vote if Cocaine Mitch deems it not necessary)?
 
Anything interesting going on in the afternoon session?
 
BarcaDeac said:
If the President is impeached by the House is the Senate not required to hold a trial, or do they have to vote on it (or have it not come up for a vote if Cocaine Mitch deems it not necessary)?
Click to expand...

“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.”

This is the extent of language regarding the trial for the senate. “Shall” in both contexts seems ambiguous regarding the “shall” conduct or “shall conduct” if one occurs.
 
So the Republican defense is now a poster of a quote of the accused saying he didn’t do the crime after he was notified he got caught doing the crime.

It’s amazing how dumb these people are.
 
The problem is the constitution is so vague on the point it’s hard to even analyze. I think intent is that if the house impeaches the senate should hold a trial but is that what it says? Hell I don’t know. Could easily read that to say that nobody else other than the senate can hold the trial but who that would even be is unclear. This is why just going solely on the constitution when it’s obvious that the text is read for political gain is beyond stupid.
 
But I guess it was always assumed that if a president was impeached it’d be so obvious that of course the senate would try them
 
Yeah, if you're already a millionaire hotel dude, there's no reason to perjure yourself to try to keep favor with the GOP. Just go back to living the millionaire hotel dude life.
 
palmab03 said:
Yeah, if you're already a millionaire hotel dude, there's no reason to perjure yourself to try to keep favor with the GOP. Just go back to living the millionaire hotel dude life.
Click to expand...

Portland millionaire hotel dude is pretty high on the list of ideal lives. Why mess that up by having to go to Brussels and deal with EU shit all the time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top