Tucker Carlson of all people nails it. ChickenHawks beware!

[HedonistForever]

Nancy backs down and says she will be sending over the articles of impeachment in a matter of days. She said she wouldn't until McConnell laid out in detail how he would run the trial so Mitch said "I'm going to run it just like the Clinton trial and we will hear from both sides and then decide whether to call witnesses" and Nancy said OK because she had no other play. If she didn't send over the articles of impeachment, the Senate would vote to start the trial without them and who could stop them?Once both sides have presented opening statements it will only take 51 votes to say the prosecutors did not make their case and acquit the President.

[WTF]

The Senate could not start the trial without the House sending them over.

I would have not sent them over and kept Trumps nuts in a vice. Let you Trump lovers cry all you want.

The Dems pussied out if that is the case.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by WTF

The Senate could not start the trial without the House sending them over.

I would have not sent them over and kept Trumps nuts in a vice. Let you Trump lovers cry all you want.

The Dems pussied out if that is the case.

And again you make a statement of fact ( or so you think ) and make no attempt to back it up.


With 51 votes, the Senate can make any rules it wants including starting the trial since impeachment has been completed but if any body can produce wording from the Constitution saying other wise, I'd like to see it.


The caveat is that McConnell says he will wait out Pelosi just to piss her off and in addition, will start the trial without a witness list, again just to piss her off because he can.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-i...hout-articles/


Graham suggests changing Senate rules to begin impeachment trial without articles


Top Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of President Trump's key allies in Congress, proposed the GOP-controlled Senate change its rules to allow the president's impeachment trial to begin if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not send the articles of impeachment to the upper chamber this week.


Calling Pelosi's decision to withhold the two articles, passed by the House in a historic vote in December, a "political stunt," Graham told Fox News on Sunday that House Democrats are "trying to hold these articles over the head of the president."


"If we don't get the articles this week, then we need to take matters in our own hands and change the rules, deem them to be delivered to the Senate so we can start the trial, invite the House over to participate if they would like, if they don't come, dismiss the case and get on with governing the country," Graham said.


On Friday, McConnell said the Senate cannot hold a trial without the articles of impeachment, as its "own rules don't provide for that."


Point is, with 51 votes the rules can be changed unless the Constitution says other wise. So show me where the Constitution says a trial can not begin until articles have been sent.

[HedonistForever]

I just heard something that might change what I said. Someone just said that while it's true that it only takes 51 votes to change Senate rules if a filibuster happened, it would take 60 votes to overcome the filibuster but if that's true, how did the Senate change the rules on passing judges with 51 votes? Surely a Democrat would have tried a filibuster and Republicans had less than 60 votes so I will have to look into this more but now Democrats are telling Pelosi they want her to send the articles over and get on with it so holding them back has had no benefit to Pelosi other than to make her look like she was scared.



McConnell will not acede to any of her "demands" and there is nothing she can do about it. It looks like the trial will start with no witness list, both sides will have opening arguments, McConnell will gauge the votes and if he doesn't have 51 to dismiss/ acquit, which would require losing no more than two Republicans saying they want witnesses to be called, it will be over. I predict that witnesses will be called and Bolton will testify. What he will say, I predict will be in one form or another that what Trump did was.............but not an impeachable offense. He does that, the trial is over and I will also predict Democrats will lose a couple of their people to acquittal.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I just heard something that might change what I said. Someone just said that while it's true that it only takes 51 votes to change Senate rules if a filibuster happened, it would take 60 votes to overcome the filibuster ......

Under existing Senate rules, the upper chamber “shall” begin the process of considering articles of impeachment if charges are officially brought by the House:

Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, 102 the Senate shall, at 1 o’clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful.

.....

The Constitution does not require a trial. Current Senate rules do require a trial. The Senate could unanimously ignore those rules. A majority could change those rules or otherwise dispose of the trial. A change/disposal would require at least one recorded vote.

https://www.vox.com/2019/9/30/208914...t-donald-trump

The "treatment" of an impeachment apparently is distinguished from the customary rules with respect to passing legislation. An "interpretation" of the rules by a 51 vote is acceptable, so there could be an "interpretation" that prohibits filibuster as it relates to a "rules change" that would impede the Senate going forward with its mandatory obligation to have a "trial." It is also important to note that a "trial" in the Senate is not the customary "trial" that PussLousy has been demanding.

PussLousy doesn't "interpret" the Constitution for the Senate. And that's what she's trying to do. She's already screwed things up in the House and now she's trying to fix it in the Senate. She can't do that. She's just getting more egg on her face.

[Redhot1960]

Originally Posted by WTF

Oh no.Can you chickens hits answer Tuckers questions?

You, WMBs and Ayatollah Kerrymani Ketchupiyeh can wax each others balls!

[HoeHummer]

The fuck does this have to do with anything’s, HedRot?

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by HoeHummer

The fuck does this have to do with anything’s, HedRot?

Says all of us about all your posts assup

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by WTF

FTFY