Vort Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 1 minute ago, scottyg said: Does no one actually read what's posted any more? Well...apparently not. Impeachment is not removal from office Impeachment is completely separate form a senate trial LOL 1 minute ago, scottyg said: Vort, the House has accused Trump of wrongdoing. A formal accusation has been made. Holding a vote does constitute a formal accusation. Then why can't the Senate act on them yet? 2 minutes ago, scottyg said: They DO NOT have to go to the senate to be formalized. Then why can't the Senate yet act on the House's supposed impeachment? 3 minutes ago, scottyg said: Sorry my friend, but your mind already seems to be closed on this, and I cannot make it any clear either...so I will be leaving you and this topic with this in regards to Impeachment You took the words right out of my mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Vort said: If the affirmative vote constitutes impeachment, then by Constitutional stipulation, the Senate can now act on that impeachment and hold a trial. Can the Senate now hold a trial based on the House's approved articles of impeachment? No. Why not? Because they, the Senate, have not yet received any articles of impeachment, so there's nothing to try the President on. So, therefore...? No impeachment has yet taken place. I am not saying I agree with it... I am saying that is the argument. Per the Constitution the House Has Sole power to impeach. Thus the argument is that the President is impeached as soon as the House Says he is... Which they have. Your argument that because the Senate can't act it has not happened... is nowhere written in the Constitution or in the House. It is the Senate Rules that say they can not hold a trial with out the Articles and that makes every sense in the World... But it is a simple rule change of the Senate away from being able to do exactly that. Edited January 2, 2020 by estradling75 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Vort said: LOL Then why can't the Senate act on them yet? Because of SENATE RULES. Quote Then why can't the Senate yet act on the House's supposed impeachment? Because of SENATE RULES. Guess what the Senate can do to Senate Rules... yes. They can change it. Guess what the Senate CAN'T do. Declare a President unimpeached. Therefore, your position that the President is not impeached can be made - but you can't make it using the Senate as the reason. Edited January 2, 2020 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 9 minutes ago, anatess2 said: Incorrect. The delivery procedure is a Senate procedure. Therefore, they can change the Senate Rule to start trial or dismiss without the delivery of the articles to the Senate if it goes beyond X days that the Senate considers to be beyond the definition of "immediate". President is still Impeached because the House says he is and they have the sole power over that which, currently, doesn't require a delivery in the House procedures. Then why do any Republicans care of Pelosi holds up delivery of the articles of impeachment? If your analysis is correct, Pelosi's delivery is of ZERO importance. All the Senate has to do is say that they will take up the impeachment carried out by the House (whether or not the House has formally delivered those articles), then immediately deep-six the entire proceeding. If what you say is correct, why didn't the Senate do this the morning after the articles of impeachment were voted on? Why did everyone seem to think that Pelosi had some political power to manipulate things by withholding the delivery of the articles of impeachment, if in fact she had absolutely no political power at all in doing so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 6 minutes ago, estradling75 said: I am not saying I agree with it... I am saying that is the argument. Per the Constitution the House Has Sole power to impeach. Thus the argument is that the President is impeached as soon as the House Says he is... Which they have. Your argument that because the Senate can't act it has not happened... is nowhere written in the Constitution or in the House. It is the Senate Rules that say they can not hold a trial with out the Articles and that makes every sense in the World... But it is a simple rule change of the Senate away from being able to do exactly that. 4 minutes ago, anatess2 said: Because of SENATE RULES. Because of SENATE RULES. Guess what the Senate can do to Senate Rules... yes. They can change it. Guess what the Senate CAN'T do. Declare a President unimpeached. So if I understand the two of you correctly, the Senate found itself hamstrung by its own rules. And the Republican senators were too stupid to figure out that they could simply vote to change the rules, then immediately bury the entire proceeding. I find myself dubious of this, but I'm no Constitutional scholar. Maybe you're right. At the very least, thank you for responding to the meat of my argument, instead of yet again saying some vacuous thing like, "The Senate has no say in the House's impeachment proceedings." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 1 minute ago, Vort said: the Republican senators were too stupid Does this really surprise you Vort? Really? REALLY? There are two parties. The destructive and the stupid. I'll let you figure out which is which. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 1 minute ago, Vort said: Then why do any Republicans care of Pelosi holds up delivery of the articles of impeachment? If your analysis is correct, Pelosi's delivery is of ZERO importance. All the Senate has to do is say that they will take up the impeachment carried out by the House (whether or not the House has formally delivered those articles), then immediately deep-six the entire proceeding. Yes, they can do that. And some Senators are wanting to do that. Cocaine Mitch doesn't. 1 minute ago, Vort said: If what you say is correct, why didn't the Senate do this the morning after the articles of impeachment were voted on? Why did everyone seem to think that Pelosi had some political power to manipulate things by withholding the delivery of the articles of impeachment, if in fact she had absolutely no political power at all in doing so? Mitch has decided that putting Pelosi on the skewer over the bonfire is a better position than removing the impeachment narrative out of the 24-hour news cycle. That's Mitch's public position which is doing great for the election cycle. But my own analysis points to Mitch getting some push by Trump to go to trial. Trump wants one. I think he has plans for the trial to coordinate with the Durham and Barr investigations. But... this is just me putting 2 and 3 together doing some political mathematics. Pelosi is holding the articles to prevent Trump from getting his trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 1 minute ago, Vort said: So if I understand the two of you correctly, the Senate found itself hamstrung by its own rules. And the Republican senators were too stupid to figure out that they could simply vote to change the rules, then immediately bury the entire proceeding. I find myself dubious of this, but I'm no Constitutional scholar. Maybe you're right. At the very least, thank you for responding to the meat of my argument, instead of yet again saying some vacuous thing like, "The Senate has no say in the House's impeachment proceedings." It would be interesting to see the Senate to hold the trial without the Articles... A trial with no prosecution and evidence ends real quick. That being said I see issues with changing the rules... After all without being required the wait the Senate could act right after the vote, but before the Articles are presented every time... And I see that as being a very bad door to open up. Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 1 minute ago, estradling75 said: It would be interesting to see the Senate to hold the trial without the Articles... A trial with no prosecution and evidence ends real quick. That being said I see issues with changing the rules... After all without being required the wait the Senate could act right after the vote, but before the Articles are presented every time... And I see that as being a very bad door to open up. This is not going to require a Rule Change. They can simply clarify the definition of "immediate" in the Senate rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 Just now, anatess2 said: This is not going to require a Rule Change. They can simply clarify the definition of "immediate" in the Senate rules. Hehe... From a personal perspective I would love for the Senate to set a date for the trial. With it being very clear that if the Articles are not delivered in a timely fashion then the trial will proceed without them. Traveler and Vort 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 Yay - National discourse is at the level of a bunch of grown ups arguing about what happened on Facebook first - was it the block, or the unfriend and report? Midwest LDS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 10 minutes ago, estradling75 said: Hehe... From a personal perspective I would love for the Senate to set a date for the trial. With it being very clear that if the Articles are not delivered in a timely fashion then the trial will proceed without them. In which case I would have to concede that Trump was indeed impeached last month. Which I may do anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, estradling75 said: Hehe... From a personal perspective I would love for the Senate to set a date for the trial. With it being very clear that if the Articles are not delivered in a timely fashion then the trial will proceed without them. So... here's my theory: This can go several ways... 1.) Pelosi was pushed into impeachment by Schiff, et. al. She knows what's up. She knows what the REAL game is - not the game we are watching on TV. She's holding the articles for a reason - and it is not to get a "fair trial", that's for sure. Because everybody that plays the game knows the House did not run a "fair inquiry". But - she could possibly be pushed into sending the articles by her base contrary to her good judgment. Especially with Trump practically daring her and nagging at her to do so. 2.) Pelosi keeps the articles in the House. Mitch retains the freedom to go or not go to trial at anytime. He has the luxury of the polls going his way the longer impeachment is on the news cycle. Pelosi would be hanging on to the articles until she gets a good idea of what cards Trump is holding so she can choose the proper managers to sit on the trial. Trump gets the Durham and Barr investigations to a head, ready to declassify... he unleashes both with Giulliani using Mitch's trial to bring it out into the open. It wouldn't matter then if Pelosi has sent the articles or not. Now, whether this happens before or after November is the only thing I can't quite place. But hey, that's just my theory. Edited January 2, 2020 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: Yay - National discourse is at the level of a bunch of grown ups arguing about what happened on Facebook first - was it the block, or the unfriend and report? It would be a mistake to under-estimate the cunning of your government. These people have not been Congressmen and Senators that long without knowing what they're doing. It is to their advantage to dumb down the masses hence the work of the MSM that has treated the populace as unwashed masses that readily and happily gobbles up what they dish out. The information superhighway changed this paradigm. Now people are gobbling memes and click bait. So, the new paradigm is to dumb it down more to click bait level. Trump's "Crooked Hillary" and "Build The Wall" and "MAGA" is testament to the power of memes and click bait. NeuroTypical 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted January 2, 2020 Report Share Posted January 2, 2020 13 minutes ago, Vort said: In which case I would have to concede that Trump was indeed impeached last month. Which I may do anyway. Which would be a reason not to hold it. Since different people have legit differences on what it takes to be "Impeached." If the Senate ignores the actions of the House until it formally gets the articles it reinforces the idea that submission it what it takes.. In many ways the Senate can effectively (if not legally or Constitutionally) define what it takes by how they respond. mirkwood 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 3, 2020 Report Share Posted January 3, 2020 8 hours ago, NeuroTypical said: Yay - National discourse is at the level of a bunch of grown ups arguing about what happened on Facebook first - was it the block, or the unfriend and report? Check these new events out in today’s political lingo: (I don’t have instagram, just have this meme) Then this meme appeared on Reddit: Then Trump tweeted this: That’s how you bypass MSM who produces news articles calling the Hezbollah-flag-waving embassy raiders “Iraqi mourners”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted January 3, 2020 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2020 Update - Mitch Mcconnell has made it official - The Senate will not take any steps until the House has given the Senate the impeachment articles. And until articles are provided the Senate will not act - including even discussing how the Senate will act except to announce that no Senator will be excluded from the process - regardless of whatever bias. At this point it is a classic standoff. We will see who will blink first - which I believe will be an advanced indication of what will follow. @anatess2 has brought up the killing of Qasem Soleimani. I have mixed feelings here. I am of the opinion that Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabian interest has determined American foreign policy more in much of the Middle East than has American interests. Obviously moving the American Embassy in Israel was a new direction. The USA has been at opposition to Iran since the fall of the Shaw. Russia has a large population of Shia to deal with in Russian territories surrounding the Black and Caspian Seas. But for me the China's dealings with Iran is an enigma - unless we are somewhat misinformed that China's dealing with Muslims is not the same for all Muslims but that there are concessions for Shia aligned with Iran. I am confused as to how recent developments will play out the the current scheme of things or if this somehow plays into "signs of the times" concerning the Last-days. Anyway - I am not sure who is in the driver's seat between Russia, Iran or China in that region - Though I am quite sure China's interest is vastly different that Russia or Iran and not as likely that China has interest other than being in the game. The Russia - Iran ties are strange to me - I do not understand fundamentalist in Iran making deals with Infidels? I do not understand how that wagon holds water - let alone that it can possibly go anywhere with it. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted January 3, 2020 Report Share Posted January 3, 2020 14 hours ago, anatess2 said: Check these new events out in today’s political lingo: (I don’t have instagram, just have this meme) Then this meme appeared on Reddit: Then Trump tweeted this: That’s how you bypass MSM who produces news articles calling the Hezbollah-flag-waving embassy raiders “Iraqi mourners”. So you are in favor of the assassination? I thought that you were against such strikes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 3, 2020 Report Share Posted January 3, 2020 52 minutes ago, Traveler said: Anyway - I am not sure who is in the driver's seat between Russia, Iran or China in that region - I don't have much time to respond. I just want to address this. Look up RSII coalition (4+1 with the +1 being Hezbollahs of Lebanon - as opposed to the government of Lebanon) that was formed against ISIL. Soleimani drove that bus. China has no involvement with it. Chinese military are not allied unless it directly benefits China. Russia and Iran have been allied since the Savafids of the Persian Empire due to their common geographic interests. 52 minutes ago, Traveler said: Though I am quite sure China's interest is vastly different that Russia or Iran and not as likely that China has interest other than being in the game. The Russia - Iran ties are strange to me - I do not understand fundamentalist in Iran making deals with Infidels? I do not understand how that wagon holds water - let alone that it can possibly go anywhere with it. The Traveler China and Iran alliance goes back to the Silk Road. But, China has a very different tradition - they don't do anything that is not directly to their benefit. Iran buys military arsenal from China as China is considered in opposition to the West. China happily provides it for them through North Korea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 3, 2020 Report Share Posted January 3, 2020 12 minutes ago, Scott said: So you are in favor of the assassination? I thought that you were against such strikes? I'm neither against nor in favor of it. An assassination is never about the assassination. It is always the geopolitical events surrounding the assassination. The Iranians have been boldy escalating things in the region. Trump has been showing critical restraint. Trump issued a threat to Khameini after the Embassy raid. Khameini bragged Trump won't do anything. He was proven wrong. Trump took a queen. Remember, this has been escalating from Iran attacks on facilities and drones that Trump responded to with economic sanctions instead of military strikes. Then Iran escalated with a strike that cost an American life. This time Trump retaliated with focused military force. The Embassy raid that threatened the lives of American civilians was Iran's response to Trump's targeted military strikes. Let's see what happens next. Khameini will have to respond or lose face. Trump already opened an alley by reminding Khameini that Iran has not won a single war but has not lost a single negotiation - to help him save face. What I want is, of course, for all parties to go back to their own countries and stop messing around with other country's sovereignty. Let each country deal with their own problems. But, that kettle has been put over the fire over half a century ago. That's not an option anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted January 4, 2020 Report Share Posted January 4, 2020 7 hours ago, anatess2 said: The Iranians have been boldy escalating things in the region. My internet is so slow where I am (currently Morocco) that I can't provide a detailed response, but I have to say that Trump has been doing a poor job with US Iran relations. I do give Trump credit for pulling out of Syria and at least trying to make progress in North Korea, but he is setting back US Iran relationships decades, even without this assassination. The escalation between of things in the region can't be solely blamed on Iran. I know you don't like Obama, but US Iranian relations were improving greatly and were at least on the right track (though they still had a long way to go) under Obama. Now we may be headed down the path of another war in the region. Toppling Saddam was the main factor in emboldening Iran, but shat Trump is doing is going to have the opposite of the desired effect. Despite the leadership in Iran, there are a lot of Iranian citizens who want better relationships with the US and who embrace a lot of US ideals. We need to remember this in this regard. What Trump is doing isn't helping 8n this regard and is making things worse. If you disagree with this, we'll just have to disagree because there is no way that I'd disagree with what I just said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 4, 2020 Report Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Scott said: My internet is so slow where I am (currently Morocco) that I can't provide a detailed response, but I have to say that Trump has been doing a poor job with US Iran relations. I do give Trump credit for pulling out of Syria and at least trying to make progress in North Korea, but he is setting back US Iran relationships decades, even without this assassination. The escalation between of things in the region can't be solely blamed on Iran. I know you don't like Obama, but US Iranian relations were improving greatly and were at least on the right track (though they still had a long way to go) under Obama. Now we may be headed down the path of another war in the region. Toppling Saddam was the main factor in emboldening Iran, but shat Trump is doing is going to have the opposite of the desired effect. Despite the leadership in Iran, there are a lot of Iranian citizens who want better relationships with the US and who embrace a lot of US ideals. We need to remember this in this regard. What Trump is doing isn't helping 8n this regard and is making things worse. If you disagree with this, we'll just have to disagree because there is no way that I'd disagree with what I just said. Yep, we're gonna have to disagree on the matter. Appeasing the Ayatollahs is NEVER a move in the right direction. Not for the Iranians and not for the US. That's not just a lose situation, it's a lose-lose situation. Obama bowing to the Ayatollahs even after they humiliate US captives on the international stage is not a "better" relationship. It's like an abused wife saying her relationship with her husband got better because she got the beer fast enough to avoid getting whipped. Edited January 4, 2020 by anatess2 NightSG 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted January 4, 2020 Report Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, anatess2 said: Yep, we're gonna have to disagree on the matter. Appeasing the Ayatollahs is NEVER a move in the right direction. Not for the Iranians and not for the US. That's not just a lose situation, it's a lose-lose situation. Obama bowing to the Ayatollahs even after they humiliate US captives on the international stage is not a "better" relationship. It's like an abused wife saying her relationship with her husband got better because she got the beer fast enough to avoid getting whipped. I'd have to disagree that Obama bowed down to the Ayatollahs any more than Trump bowed down to Kim Jong Un. Obama and the US were making progress in Iran. It was better than what we have now. Edited January 4, 2020 by Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 4, 2020 Report Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Scott said: I'd have to disagree that Obama bowed down to the Ayatollahs any more than Trump bowed down to Kim Jong Un. Obama and the US were making progress in Iran. It was better than what we have now. Really? What did the Iranians change to get $500 billion of its assets unfrozen? What did the Iranians concede to get access to nuclear material? Yemen and Syria still happened. Why did Obama deliver millions in cash to Iran at the same time Iran released US hostages? You know what changed? Corporatists got chunks of money out of that $500 billion. Now name something Trump gave Kim without DPRK concessions. Edited January 4, 2020 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted January 4, 2020 Report Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 48 minutes ago, anatess2 said: Really? What did the Iranians change to get $500 billion of its assets unfrozen? What did the Iranians concede to get access to nuclear material? Yemen and Syria still happened. Why did Obama deliver millions in cash to Iran at the same time Iran released US hostages? You know what changed? Corporatists got chunks of money out of that $500 billion. Now name something Trump gave Kim without DPRK concessions. I can't answer in too much detail because the internet is so slow and limited here, but Iran gave several concessions including allowing nuclear inspections, reducing stockpiles of nuclear materials, centrifuges, facilities for heavy water, etc. This was better than what we have now. PS, where are you getting that $500 billion in assets were unfrozen? It wasn't even remotely close to that. Edited January 4, 2020 by Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.