Impeachment Thread: * locks eyes with Nunes* "...Chalupa."

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Impeachment Thread: * locks eyes with Nunes* "...Chalupa."

«‹›322 »

Acute Grill: Dec 9, 2011; Chomp

Ogmius815 posted:

Lol the Supreme Court isn�t going to cancel the election. Calm down.

What if Trump goes into our dreams and deletes the word "elections" from our minds so we forget to have them? What then?

# ? Jan 6, 2020 21:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 31, 2024 04:32

BlueBlazer: Apr 1, 2010

Ogmius815 posted:

Lol the Supreme Court isn�t going to cancel the election. Calm down.

quote:

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election. The ruling was issued on December 13, 2000. On December 9, the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring.

Not really all that unprecedented. Not alarmist to think that individual states could have elections invalidated.

# ? Jan 6, 2020 23:51

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Munkeymon posted:

Says legal experts familiar with the court, actually.

remember that time John Roberts decided the Voting Rights Act doesn't apply anymore on the grounds of something he made up on the spot

~precedent ain't gonna save you~

# ? Jan 6, 2020 23:52

eke out: Feb 24, 2013

https://twitter.com/dsamuelsohn/status/1214341064867418119
https://twitter.com/dsamuelsohn/status/1214341719375962113

lol

they're staying with these guys that suck a ton, and they may also call some of the dumbest republicans in the house to speak for them

# ? Jan 7, 2020 01:26

InsertPotPun: Apr 16, 2018; Pissy Bitch stan

eke out posted:

https://twitter.com/dsamuelsohn/status/1214341064867418119
https://twitter.com/dsamuelsohn/status/1214341719375962113

lol

they're staying with these guys that suck a ton, and they may also call some of the dumbest republicans in the house to speak for them

I'm sure they were up for days crafting the exact same strategy as before: jamming your fingers in your ears and screaming "NO FAIR NO FAIR NO FAIR"

# ? Jan 7, 2020 01:32

1glitch0: Sep 4, 2018; I DON'T GIVE A CRAP WHAT SHE BELIEVES THE HARRY POTTER BOOKS CHANGED MY LIFE #HUFFLEPUFF

Ogmius815 posted:

Lol the Supreme Court isn�t going to cancel the election. Calm down.

Dude, they installed a republican as president 20 years ago despite the other guy winning.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 01:55

DandyLion: Jun 24, 2010; disrespectul Deciever

1glitch0 posted:

Dude, they installed a republican as president 20 years ago despite the other guy winning.

Yeah this. Even after it happens repeatedly folks still think theres now way it could happen.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 01:57

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

remember that time John Roberts decided the Voting Rights Act doesn't apply anymore on the grounds of something he made up on the spot

~precedent ain't gonna save you~

Nobody's citing his respect for precedent. Try to keep up

# ? Jan 7, 2020 02:33

Charlz Guybon: Nov 16, 2010

Cowards, the lot of them

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/477045-mcconnell-has-the-votes-to-block-democrats-witness-demands-in-trump

quote:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has the votes to quash Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer�s (N.Y.) demands to require additional witnesses testify at the start of President Trump�s impeachment trial.

Two key moderate senators, Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), on Monday evening backed McConnell�s position that the Senate should follow the precedent of the 1999 Clinton impeachment trial and defer until later in the process the question of calling additional witnesses.

Collins told reporters at Monday evening votes that the Senate should follow the 1999 precedent and consider the question of subpoenaing additional witnesses and documents only after House impeachment managers and Trump�s defense team present their opening arguments.

She noted in a statement Monday that then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) adopted a resolution in 1999 to set out the rules for the proceeding that didn't include any agreement for specific witnesses to testify.

�The process moved to a period during which the Senate debated and voted that three witnesses should be deposed. I believe that this process � the Clinton approach � worked well,� she said.

Murkowski also urged colleagues to follow the path laid out during the Clinton trial.

�I think we need to do what they did the last time they did this unfortunate process and that was to go through a first phase and then they reassessed after that,� she told reporters.

The Alaska senator also said questions about whether former national security adviser John Bolton and other key witnesses should testify should be discussed only after Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

�We don�t have anything to get to? So do you have any interesting news for me on that? Like when we might be able to get articles?� she said.

She said the precedent set by Clinton�s trial �is how we get started with this.�

�I don�t think there is any decision on Bolton because we don�t have articles,� she added.

The statements of these two crucial votes are a setback for Schumer and Pelosi who have been pressing GOP moderates hard over the past several weeks to insist on an opening resolution for the trial that would set the table for subpoenaing key witnesses and documents.

Republicans control 53 Senate seats and Democrats have 45, plus the support of two independents. That means Schumer needs the support of at least four Republicans to pass an organizing resolution for the trial that meets his demands.

Without Collins and Murkowski, the Democratic leader has no chance of passing a resolution that would require key witnesses to testify and key documents to receive review before a final up-or-down vote on the articles of impeachment.

Schumer has insisted on hearing from Bolton, who said Monday that he would testify before the Senate if subpoenaed; acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney; Robert Blair, a senior adviser to Mulvaney; and Michael Duffey, associate director for national security at the Office of Management and Budget.

�A simple majority is all it takes to ensure that the Senate issues a subpoena for these witnesses. If only four Republicans decide that Mr. Bolton and the three other witnesses ought to be heard, they will be heard, because every Democrat will vote to hear," he said.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has the votes to quash Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer�s (N.Y.) demands to require additional witnesses testify at the start of President Trump�s impeachment trial.

Two key moderate senators, Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), on Monday evening backed McConnell�s position that the Senate should follow the precedent of the 1999 Clinton impeachment trial and defer until later in the process the question of calling additional witnesses.

Collins told reporters at Monday evening votes that the Senate should follow the 1999 precedent and consider the question of subpoenaing additional witnesses and documents only after House impeachment managers and Trump�s defense team present their opening arguments.

She noted in a statement Monday that then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) adopted a resolution in 1999 to set out the rules for the proceeding that didn't include any agreement for specific witnesses to testify.

�The process moved to a period during which the Senate debated and voted that three witnesses should be deposed. I believe that this process � the Clinton approach � worked well,� she said.

Murkowski also urged colleagues to follow the path laid out during the Clinton trial.

�I think we need to do what they did the last time they did this unfortunate process and that was to go through a first phase and then they reassessed after that,� she told reporters.

The Alaska senator also said questions about whether former national security adviser John Bolton and other key witnesses should testify should be discussed only after Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

�We don�t have anything to get to? So do you have any interesting news for me on that? Like when we might be able to get articles?� she said.

She said the precedent set by Clinton�s trial �is how we get started with this.�

�I don�t think there is any decision on Bolton because we don�t have articles,� she added.

The statements of these two crucial votes are a setback for Schumer and Pelosi who have been pressing GOP moderates hard over the past several weeks to insist on an opening resolution for the trial that would set the table for subpoenaing key witnesses and documents.

Republicans control 53 Senate seats and Democrats have 45, plus the support of two independents. That means Schumer needs the support of at least four Republicans to pass an organizing resolution for the trial that meets his demands.

Without Collins and Murkowski, the Democratic leader has no chance of passing a resolution that would require key witnesses to testify and key documents to receive review before a final up-or-down vote on the articles of impeachment.

Schumer has insisted on hearing from Bolton, who said Monday that he would testify before the Senate if subpoenaed; acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney; Robert Blair, a senior adviser to Mulvaney; and Michael Duffey, associate director for national security at the Office of Management and Budget.

�A simple majority is all it takes to ensure that the Senate issues a subpoena for these witnesses. If only four Republicans decide that Mr. Bolton and the three other witnesses ought to be heard, they will be heard, because every Democrat will vote to hear," he said.

Schumer noted that Bolton�s lawyers have said he has �new and relevant information� to share and said any GOP senators who vote against compelling his testimony �would make absolutely clear they are participating in a cover up.�

McConnell on Monday said the Senate should stick to the Clinton precedent regardless of recent developments, such as Bolton�s statement.

�The Senate does not bob along on the current of every news cycle,� he said on the Senate floor.

He noted the Senate didn�t vote to subpoena witnesses and new evidence for Clinton�s trial until nearly three weeks after it adopted the opening resolution.

�In 1999, every single U.S. senator agreed to establish basic parameters for the start of the trial up front and be reserved mid-trial questions such as witnesses until later. The vote was 100-0,� McConnell argued, sticking firmly to the position he has held in recent weeks.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), one of Trump�s most outspoken critics, deviated most from the party line among GOP senators Monday, but he stopped short of saying he would vote to subpoena Bolton or any witness.

Romney said he wants to know what Bolton has to say but declined to make a decision on how he would vote on a subpoena until he knows more about the process.

�I would like to be able to hear from John Bolton. What the process is to make that happen, I don�t have an answer for you,� he said.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:47

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

Charlz Guybon posted:

Cowards, the lot of them

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/477045-mcconnell-has-the-votes-to-block-democrats-witness-demands-in-trump

least collins will be gone now. rear end in a top hat has hosed over to many people to survive. good loving riddens.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:55

oxsnard: Oct 8, 2003

Yep so if you're the Dems, you need to escalate. Start a new impeachment probe

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:27

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Charlz Guybon posted:

Cowards, the lot of them

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/477045-mcconnell-has-the-votes-to-block-democrats-witness-demands-in-trump

Am I reading this right that they are saying they should follow the Clinton precedent of setting the rules first by arguing they shouldn't have to set the rules first?

# ? Jan 7, 2020 05:11

The Glumslinger: Sep 24, 2008; Coach Nagy, you want me to throw to WHAT side of the field?; Hair Elf

Someone is begging to talk to anyone in congress with the power to get him the gently caress out of jail

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1214413868488888320

# ? Jan 7, 2020 06:12

Roluth: Apr 22, 2014

Charlz Guybon posted:

Cowards, the lot of them

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/477045-mcconnell-has-the-votes-to-block-democrats-witness-demands-in-trump

Well, that didn't work out. Guess being primaried was more certain than losing in the general. Looks like the only option now is to hope that the Dems can successfully play off the trial as a sham. This whole thing is going to end up as a wash, but I'm still glad it was done.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 06:46

Charlz Guybon: Nov 16, 2010

Roluth posted:

Well, that didn't work out. Guess being primaried was more certain than losing in the general. Looks like the only option now is to hope that the Dems can successfully play off the trial as a sham. This whole thing is going to end up as a wash, but I'm still glad it was done.

Too late for new primary challengers, isn't it?

This is gambling that they're less hosed in the general with Trump then without him.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 10:55

Helen Highwater: Feb 19, 2014; And furthermore; Grimey Drawer

Roluth posted:

Well, that didn't work out. Guess being primaried was more certain than losing in the general. Looks like the only option now is to hope that the Dems can successfully play off the trial as a sham. This whole thing is going to end up as a wash, but I'm still glad it was done.

Collins is up for re-election this year but she won the last one by 37 points. Murkowski isn't up for re-election until 2022. Murkowksi didn't get an overall majority in her last election, but the non-Republican vote was so split that the Democrat came fourth behind the Libertarian candidate and an independent.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 11:57

LeeMajors: Jan 20, 2005; I've gotta stop fantasizing about Lee Majors...
Ah, one more!

Charlz Guybon posted:

Cowards, the lot of them

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/477045-mcconnell-has-the-votes-to-block-democrats-witness-demands-in-trump

Oh good, I guess that's that.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 14:20

Tibalt: May 14, 2017; What, drawn, and talk of peace! I hate the word, As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee

LeeMajors posted:

Oh good, I guess that's that.

I mean, Pelosi could still hold onto the Articles to try and keep pressuring Republican Senators. 'We should do it the same way we did it for Clinton' feels like a fairly weak line, and I don't perceive much risk to Pelosi or the Democrats to keep holding onto the articles at this point.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 14:27

cr0y: Mar 24, 2005

The Glumslinger posted:

Someone is begging to talk to anyone in congress with the power to get him the gently caress out of jail

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1214413868488888320

This reads as "I am suffering consequences for my actions and I WILL NOT tolerate it any further"

# ? Jan 7, 2020 14:31

Fritz Coldcockin: Nov 7, 2005

Helen Highwater posted:

Collins is up for re-election this year but she won the last one by 37 points. Murkowski isn't up for re-election until 2022. Murkowksi didn't get an overall majority in her last election, but the non-Republican vote was so split that the Democrat came fourth behind the Libertarian candidate and an independent.

Collins is a dead woman walking; she went from one of the most popular Senators in Congress to one of the least popular in the span of a year almost entirely due to her Kavanaugh vote. She might survive a primary but there is a much-better-than-average chance she loses a general election this time around.

She had two bad choices--vote to convict and lose a primary, or vote to acquit, MAYBE survive a primary and lose a general. She chose option B.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 14:47

Ershalim: Sep 22, 2008; Clever Betty

Fritz Coldcockin posted:

Collins is a dead woman walking; she went from one of the most popular Senators in Congress to one of the least popular in the span of a year almost entirely due to her Kavanaugh vote. She might survive a primary but there is a much-better-than-average chance she loses a general election this time around.

She had two bad choices--vote to convict and lose a primary, or vote to acquit, MAYBE survive a primary and lose a general. She chose option B.

I think the larger part was that she opted to give a press conference where she lectured everyone for an hour before voting to uplift the rapist like everyone already knew she was going to. When faced with 2 bad choices, she went for "condescend everyone for making her do her job." Voting for Kav was bad, ofc, but everyone expected the Rs to do that. I think only Murkowski voted present instead of confirming him? But at that point it didn't matter and they already had Manchin.

It's a weird situation we have, where there are so many terrible senators that the ones who are merely bad most of the time are seen as important. :negative:

# ? Jan 7, 2020 14:55

FizFashizzle: Mar 30, 2005

susan collins is so scared she's threatening not to run because of how unfair it is that people are fundraising against her.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 15:34

Fritz Coldcockin: Nov 7, 2005

FizFashizzle posted:

susan collins is so scared she's threatening not to run because of how unfair it is that people are fundraising against her.

willy_wonka_no_dont_stop.gif

# ? Jan 7, 2020 15:47

ought ten: Feb 6, 2004

FizFashizzle posted:

susan collins is so scared she's threatening not to run because of how unfair it is that people are fundraising against her.

She announced she�s running a week or so ago. She�s in.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 16:12

Phil Moscowitz: Feb 19, 2007; If blood be the price of admiralty,
Lord God, we ha' paid in full!

Tibalt posted:

I mean, Pelosi could still hold onto the Articles to try and keep pressuring Republican Senators. 'We should do it the same way we did it for Clinton' feels like a fairly weak line, and I don't perceive much risk to Pelosi or the Democrats to keep holding onto the articles at this point.

Especially since all of these people voted against doing it the way it was done for Clinton

# ? Jan 7, 2020 17:03

InsertPotPun: Apr 16, 2018; Pissy Bitch stan

like...loving seriously. 100% they are squinting at "_rump did _rimes" and screaming "I don't see it! "Brump did primes" what could it beeeee???"

# ? Jan 7, 2020 18:11

Grouchio: Aug 31, 2014

Senators are saying McConnell appears to have the votes to set impeachment trial rules without Democratic support.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 19:59

F_Shit_Fitzgerald: Feb 2, 2017

Grouchio posted:

Senators are saying McConnell appears to have the votes to set impeachment trial rules without Democratic support.

Good. That just proves Democrats' point about Yertle wanting to hold a sham trial. When even CNN is saying in its news and opinion articles that Pelosi holding back impeachment articles "makes sense", that's an indication to me that the Senate is on the losing side of this fight.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 20:04

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:

Good. That just proves Democrats' point about Yertle wanting to hold a sham trial. When even CNN is saying in its news and opinion articles that Pelosi holding back impeachment articles "makes sense", that's an indication to me that the Senate is on the losing side of this fight.

the cnn article also says mitch is gonna wait for the articles. so it makes me suspect yertle is bluffing.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 20:09

F_Shit_Fitzgerald: Feb 2, 2017

Dapper_Swindler posted:

the cnn article also says mitch is gonna wait for the articles. so it makes me suspect yertle is bluffing.

That makes sense. He has to know how it would look to just go ahead with a trial on a purely GOP vote.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 20:17

InsertPotPun: Apr 16, 2018; Pissy Bitch stan

F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:

That makes sense. He has to know how it would look to just go ahead with a trial on a purely GOP vote.

they'll just point to the purely dem vote and call it fair *wank*

# ? Jan 7, 2020 20:21

DandyLion: Jun 24, 2010; disrespectul Deciever

Dapper_Swindler posted:

the cnn article also says mitch is gonna wait for the articles. so it makes me suspect yertle is bluffing.

Yeah no, he's going to do it. You think he cares? He went on Fox and bragged about how it was going to be a sham trial.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 20:25

oxsnard: Oct 8, 2003

at this point, trump is gonna get acquitted by the senate, so the best case scenario for us may be a sham trial that everyone knows is a joke

# ? Jan 7, 2020 20:26

eke out: Feb 24, 2013

so it seems like he has the votes to just not decide on witnesses at all and kick the can down the road and hope they can get the votes together to have none later

sooner or later Collins and co. will have to take a vote that hurts, but they hope that maybe if they just keep delaying it'll never happen

# ? Jan 7, 2020 20:56

Fritz Coldcockin: Nov 7, 2005

eke out posted:

so it seems like he has the votes to just not decide on witnesses at all and kick the can down the road and hope they can get the votes together to have none later

sooner or later Collins and co. will have to take a vote that hurts, but they hope that maybe if they just keep delaying it'll never happen

Not sure that's gonna be an option, and the closer Mitch pushes this to the election the more dangerous it gets for them.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 21:06

Arc Hammer: Mar 4, 2013; Got any deathsticks?

Question: if Bitch Turtle McDonald's acquits Trump on the two articles drafted against him, what's to stop the House from bringing forward more articles and impeaching him again? Legally speaking, I know that the Democrats could view one failure as reason to not try and impeach him a second time.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 21:15

eke out: Feb 24, 2013

Fritz Coldcockin posted:

Not sure that's gonna be an option, and the closer Mitch pushes this to the election the more dangerous it gets for them.

if impeachment rules are silent about what witnesses may be called, which is what is suggested there, then the dems will obviously call them, and the turtle will have to get together 51 votes if he doesn't want it to happen

# ? Jan 7, 2020 21:16

Ershalim: Sep 22, 2008; Clever Betty

Arcsquad12 posted:

Question: if Bitch Turtle McDonald's acquits Trump on the two articles drafted against him, what's to stop the House from bringing forward more articles and impeaching him again? Legally speaking, I know that the Democrats could view one failure as reason to not try and impeach him a second time.

In theory, the house can continue to impeach him with as many articles as they can pass through the house. In practice this would have immediately diminishing returns and start to shift public opinion toward trump as it would seem childish and petty. Which is ironic, considering we're talking about trump...

# ? Jan 7, 2020 21:17

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

Arcsquad12 posted:

Question: if Bitch Turtle McDonald's acquits Trump on the two articles drafted against him, what's to stop the House from bringing forward more articles and impeaching him again? Legally speaking, I know that the Democrats could view one failure as reason to not try and impeach him a second time.

Nothing, beyond the fact that a) this has never happened before in US history and b) by the time it becomes clear this is necessary we will probably be close enough to the election that no one is willing to keep pushing.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 21:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 31, 2024 04:32

Tibalt: May 14, 2017; What, drawn, and talk of peace! I hate the word, As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee

Ershalim posted:

In theory, the house can continue to impeach him with as many articles as they can pass through the house. In practice this would have immediately diminishing returns and start to shift public opinion toward trump as it would seem childish and petty. Which is ironic, considering we're talking about trump...

Impeachment for the same reasons would be less popular, but a sufficiently terrible different scandal seems like it would still be popular enough to me. I doubt that something sufficient would appear between the acquittal and the election, but I don't think we can really look at past impeachment proceedings to gauge how the public will react.

I mean, the fact that this is so popular and is happening during the first term already makes this situation very different. Nixon wasn't worried about an election, and while Clinton was obviously concerned with Gore's chances, Gore himself wasn't really connected.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 21:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Impeachment Thread: * locks eyes with Nunes* "...Chalupa."

«‹›322 »