- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Our President is tweeting about Adam Schiff testifying!
Posted on 11/23/19 at 10:21 am to slapahoe
Posted on 11/23/19 at 10:21 am to slapahoe
If it gets to the Senate, Schiff has a few options:
Testify truthfully about WB, admit to coordinating w/ WB, and voluntarily destroy the whole Dem OMB narrative, in addition to his career;
Plead the Fifth, knowing the defense already has answers;
Quadruple done on horse shite narrative and either go to jail for perjury, or go to jail for other crimes committed (Chateau Marmont/Standard Hotel) that come out to nuke his credibility.
Testify truthfully about WB, admit to coordinating w/ WB, and voluntarily destroy the whole Dem OMB narrative, in addition to his career;
Plead the Fifth, knowing the defense already has answers;
Quadruple done on horse shite narrative and either go to jail for perjury, or go to jail for other crimes committed (Chateau Marmont/Standard Hotel) that come out to nuke his credibility.
Posted on 11/23/19 at 10:32 am to VoxDawg
quote:
If it gets to the Senate
McConnell has an option. There might not necessarily be a trial with some legal twisting by him as he was accused in the Merrick denial.
It'a a lengthy read but is a very definite possibility imo this could happen to save face with this debacle of partisan politics. Could be the Dems would welcome this option in the Senate.
quote:
If the House impeaches, then it would follow that the Senate tries the case. This is what the Senate did on the two occasions, in the cases of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, that the House voted articles of impeachment.
The current Senate rules would further support this view. They contemplate that when the House has voted an impeachment, the Senate will be notified, the House managers will present their case and trial proceedings, which the rules prescribe in some detail, will begin.
But it is also possible that, in this time of disregard and erosion of established institutional practices and norms, the current leadership of the Senate could choose to abrogate them once more. The same Mitch McConnell who blocked the Senate’s exercise of its authority to advise and consent to the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland, could attempt to prevent the trial of a House impeachment of Donald Trump. And he would not have to look far to find the constitutional arguments and the flexibility to revise Senate rules and procedures to accomplish this purpose.
The Constitution does not by its express terms direct the Senate to try an impeachment. In fact, it confers on the Senate "the sole power to try,” which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command. The Constitution couches the power to impeach in the same terms: it is the House’s “sole power.” The House may choose to impeach or not, and one can imagine an argument that the Senate is just as free, in the exercise of its own “sole power,” to decline to try any impeachment that the House elects to vote.
The current rules governing Senate practice and procedure do not pose an insurmountable problem for this maneuver. Senate leadership can seek to have the rules “reinterpreted” at any time by the device of seeking a ruling of the chair on the question, and avoiding a formal revision of the rule that would require supermajority approval. The question presented in some form would be whether, under the relevant rules, the Senate is required to hold an impeachment “trial” fully consistent with current rules—or even any trial at all. A chair’s ruling in the affirmative would be subject to being overturned by a majority, not two-thirds, vote.
This is a replay of the argument and related procedure followed for the “nuclear option” that changed the threshold for “cloture” of judicial nomination debates from a two-thirds to a majority vote. When the Republican leadership floated the option in 2005, some made the case that because the Constitution conferring the Senate’s advice and consent authority does not subject that authority to any supermajority confirmation requirement, the Senate rules could not provide otherwise. Some might argue that the rules also cannot constitutionally bind the Senate to a trial of a House impeachment if, in the exercise of its “sole power” to try, it decides against one. In this way, the Senate rule may be “reinterpreted.”
LINK
Posted on 11/23/19 at 10:35 am to VoxDawg
quote:I hope you are right but why would the hotel stuff be relevant and/or admissible?
If it gets to the Senate, Schiff has a few options:
Testify truthfully about WB, admit to coordinating w/ WB, and voluntarily destroy the whole Dem OMB narrative, in addition to his career;
Plead the Fifth, knowing the defense already has answers;
Quadruple done on horse shite narrative and either go to jail for perjury, or go to jail for other crimes committed (Chateau Marmont/Standard Hotel) that come out to nuke his credibility.
Posted on 11/23/19 at 10:37 am to VoxDawg
quote:
Quadruple done on horse shite narrative and either go to jail for perjury, or go to jail for other crimes committed (Chateau Marmont/Standard Hotel) that come out to nuke his credibility.
Quadruple down on the narrative and, in the interest of decorum and the "honor" of the Senate/House, have nothing whatsoever happen to him.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News