Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[REDSTATEWARD]

Yank ask our constitutional expert why he thinks impeaching Kamala re the Minny Bail Fund is in his words :interesting". As he has researched the issue , what is his legal theory that makes it interesting and why is it grounds for impeachment?

thanks I'll hang-up and listen.

I would never presume to guess to what our Learned Hand is thinking.  Red knows.  He knows.

Learned Hand.
Timely reference.

[bankshot1]

Question for the all.

I was hoping before the vote on Saturday, the senators would use 2-3 minutes to explain or argue their position, or maybe even attempt to change a vote or two. Now even if allowing just 2 minutes per Senator thats 200 minutes or a little more than 3 hours to address colleagues and the nation on this important issue. But i think it would have been time well spent. and for lots of reasons. But a long week-end awaited and these guys wanted to leave the crime scene ASAP and there were supporters to shake down for contributions or make amends with.

but in any case, I was curious if Machiavellian Mitch had delivered his closing statement-summary before his vote rather than after, would he have swayed any other R-voters?

[LarryBnDC]

Mitch said he would vote to acquit before the trial.

[bankshot1]

Mitch said he would vote to acquit before the trial.

and Mitch said Trump was guilty after the Senate trial.

But gave him a pass on a previously settled issue of Senate jurisdiaction. (ie Mitch wanted to play by his rules and screw the rules the Senate adopted-ie Mitch was ok with anarchy as long as its to his benefit)


The point was in the world's greatest deliberative body" ^tm, I would have liked to hear all the senators oratorial and persuasive skills on display making or rebutting the House's case.

Machiavellian Mitch's reasoning was both compelling and bullshit.

YMMV

3 hours doesn't seem a lot to ask, to see who has a fastball and who doesn't

[kidcarter8]

Analysis has been that McConnell could have brought some votes with him - how many we do not know - had he done a Cassidy.

But standing by a "how can I vote to convict in a case I said shouldn't be brought?" is pretty firm wisdom.

[facilitatorn]

Throwing dirt on the charred remains of Moscow Mitch and bitch ass Lindsey would make the Senate into a far more functional deliberative body.

Blackmail was preventing more republicans than the sane seven from voting to preserve American democracy from the noxious perverts who hold the support of their base.

[bankshot1]

Analysis has been that McConnell could have brought some votes with him - how many we do not know - had he done a Cassidy.

But standing by a "how can I vote to convict in a case I said shouldn't be brought?" is pretty firm wisdom.

But purposely delaying the trial to create a flimsy question of jurisdiction, (and one that was settled by Senate vote) and then saying if not for the jurisdictional issue I fabricated, and who's resolution I ignored, the man is guilty, is surely not a model we should aspire to copy in the future. Its not wisdom but rather a rocky ill-lit path to anarchy.

[josh]

Bank missed the part where just by going through with impeaching, not even convicting Trump the Democrats now need to face a Harris impeachment, if not others down the line.

Cooler heads will likely prevail - but rest assured there will be discussion - and a need/ask for public explanation by the VP, minimally.

Just what, precisely, do you think Harris would be impeached for?

Being a Democratic VP (or President) after the Dems (and GOP members) impeached Trump twice.

Retribution, nothing else.

He admitted as much earlier.

[josh]

Mitch said he would vote to acquit before the trial.

The vaunted keeping of vows.

[josh]

Analysis has been that McConnell could have brought some votes with him - how many we do not know - had he done a Cassidy.

But standing by a "how can I vote to convict in a case I said shouldn't be brought?" is pretty firm wisdom.

No, it's sophistry of the same sort he engaged in over Garland, asshole.

[kidcarter8]

Bank missed the part where just by going through with impeaching, not even convicting Trump the Democrats now need to face a Harris impeachment, if not others down the line.

Cooler heads will likely prevail - but rest assured there will be discussion - and a need/ask for public explanation by the VP, minimally.

Just what, precisely, do you think Harris would be impeached for?

Being a Democratic VP (or President) after the Dems (and GOP members) impeached Trump twice.

Retribution, nothing else.

He admitted as much earlier.

Cooler heads will (would) likely prevail.

(posted for the second time)

Unlike what just occurred.

[josh]

Bank missed the part where just by going through with impeaching, not even convicting Trump the Democrats now need to face a Harris impeachment, if not others down the line.

Cooler heads will likely prevail - but rest assured there will be discussion - and a need/ask for public explanation by the VP, minimally.

Just what, precisely, do you think Harris would be impeached for?

Being a Democratic VP (or President) after the Dems (and GOP members) impeached Trump twice.

Retribution, nothing else.

He admitted as much earlier.

Cooler heads will likely prevail.

(posted for the second time)

Unlike what just occurred.

It is true that cooler heads did not prevail - they lost despite 57 votes to convict.

[facilitatorn]

Analysis has been that McConnell could have brought some votes with him - how many we do not know - had he done a Cassidy.

But standing by a "how can I vote to convict in a case I said shouldn't be brought?" is pretty firm wisdom.

But purposely delaying the trial to create a flimsy question of jurisdiction, (and one that was settled by Senate vote) and then saying if not for the jurisdictional issue I fabricated, and who's resolution I ignored, the man is guilty, is surely not a model we should aspire to copy in the future. Its not wisdom but rather a rocky ill-lit path to anarchy.

With his rearguard action, Mitch is complicit in the insurrection he has disavowed.

[kidcarter8]

and Mitch said Trump was guilty after the Senate trial.


This is a misleading statement within this conversation

Guilty of bad judgement.  Bad behavior.  (Mitch's thoughts, that is)

What he was impeached for - probably not so much.

[LarryBnDC]

Analysis has been that McConnell could have brought some votes with him - how many we do not know - had he done a Cassidy.

But standing by a "how can I vote to convict in a case I said shouldn't be brought?" is pretty firm wisdom.

But purposely delaying the trial to create a flimsy question of jurisdiction, (and one that was settled by Senate vote) and then saying if not for the jurisdictional issue I fabricated, and who's resolution I ignored, the man is guilty, is surely not a model we should aspire to copy in the future. Its not wisdom but rather a rocky ill-lit path to anarchy.

With his rearguard action, Mitch is complicit in the insurrection he has disavowed.