|
So which would McConnell rather have, a 49-51 vote against, or 50-50 and Roberts saying no witnesses? If McConnell is confident in Roberts, it wouldn't suprise me to give Murkowski a pass too, he could spin it as the Chief Justice giving the trial his blessing.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:i skimmed this bullshit and it seems to say I don't need any more witnesses because: No way. There is literally no reasonable way this *doesn't* rise to the level of impeachment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:15
|
|
|
FBS posted:I for one am grateful to Alexander for the mercy kill True. What's the point of getting 4 GOP'ers to vote for calling witnesses if we were never going to get 20 to vote to convict any way? The whole point of impeachment has been to force the Senate to muck themselves up in Trump's stink. Mission accomplished. They are unquestionably accomplices now. Anything he does between now and November, they own even more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:16
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Never get your hopes up that a Republican will ever do the right thing. Ever.  I'm genuinely depressed right now. My mom just went on a huge hateful rant about how dangerous democrats are to government and how they're just filled with hate and it's the only reason they're doing what they're doing. My mom has a bachelor's in criminal justice and graduated summa cum laude with a 4.0, for what it's worth. Just to really hammer in how painful it is that she cannot see the forest for the trees here. How is she so loving stupid? I don't think I could be any more disappointed with her right now. Oh wait, I can be, because an acquittal without witnesses makes this a complete and utter insult and embarrassment to this entire nation and she's going to be so loving smug about it. It's such an obvious cover-up. How can they just straight up concede that Trump did it and it was indeed an abuse of power and just... be okay with that. How are people not loving terrified of that? God I cannot loving stand republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:16
|
|
|
LabyaMynora posted:Hahahaha, Collins running to microphone to say "I'm voting YES!!!" because she knows it's a done deal. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:16
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:No way. There is literally no reasonable way this *doesn't* rise to the level of impeachment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:17
|
|
|
Republicans are the party of tyranny and should always be always refered to as such. When some chud fuckhead dipshit scumfucker denies this ask them why their party thinks "abuse of power" is okay?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:19
|
|
|
The funny part is that Alexander is still saying Trump did some dirty poo poo, and anyone who tries to duplicate his wording is going to get the full spray of petulant piss from Donnie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:19
|
|
|
SubG posted:Reporting from the Senate is saying that the Rs are citing the Dershowitz defence that if the motive isn't 100% personal than it's not impeachable. "Your honor, 99% of my motivation for killing that man on the street was just because I hated his loving hairstyle. But 1% of that reason was because he MIGHT be an axe murderer. It's not 100% personal! You gotta acquit!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:20
|
|
|
Lot of people calling Alexander a giant coward on twitter, but unfortunately it is trending #2 below this https://twitter.com/iWatchiAm/status/1223076312996368390
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:20
|
|
|
SubG posted:Reporting from the Senate is saying that the Rs are citing the Dershowitz defence that if the motive isn't 100% personal than it's not impeachable. What a loving derch The derch of a nation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
Karia posted:So which would McConnell rather have, a 49-51 vote against, or 50-50 and Roberts saying no witnesses? If McConnell is confident in Roberts, it wouldn't suprise me to give Murkowski a pass too, he could spin it as the Chief Justice giving the trial his blessing. McConnell wants 60-40. McConnell gives not one drat what Roberts has to say, and would extremely like to not involve Roberts in the final deal. But if it's close, McConnell would probably suck up to Roberts to get that juicy third branch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:25
|
|
|
I'll be stupid and retain one last worn down thread of hope, but I'd rather just see them open at 1pm, raise the question of witnesses, move the previous question at 1:10pm, vote down witnesses, then close with acquittal by 2pm and get stuck in the chambers all weekend while the riots are going on outside. Everyone who said "I'm a juror so I'm going in with an open mind" lied. Did even one senator change their opinion?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:29
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:No way. There is literally no reasonable way this *doesn't* rise to the level of impeachment. That's just, like, your opinion man
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:31
|
|
|
At least Alexander admitted that they would let Trump get away with literally ANYTHING. This makes it harder for Manchin/Sinema to vote to acquit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:32
|
|
|
Yeah my suspicions that they're going to let a couple of vulnerable Senators vote yes on a vote that they know is going to lose anyway seems correct This will be over tomorrow night
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:35
|
|
|
Feel free to call these Senator fucks on the phone, btw. Can't hurt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:36
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:No way. There is literally no reasonable way this *doesn't* rise to the level of impeachment. Well, remember, nothing is impeachable if it's done to get re elected
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:37
|
|
|
Otteration posted:Feel free to call these Senator fucks on the phone, btw. Can't hurt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:38
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:Well, remember, nothing is impeachable if it's done to get re elected These loving idiots just opened a pandora's box. I kind of hope Bernie wins and just goes hog wild.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:39
|
|
|
Madkal posted:This might be cathartic and shouting in the wind but make sure to call your Republican senator and let them know that they just enabled a dictatorship. Also let them know that that's a bad thing because they might think it's a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:42
|
|
|
Djarum posted:These loving idiots just opened a pandora's box. I kind of hope Bernie wins and just goes hog wild. Wins how? If its effectively legal for a Republican President to do anything without consequences or oversight, why would they not take every possible unethical course of action to rig the next election?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:44
|
|
|
Literal open fascism. Violating the principle of equal justice under the law is not grounds for removal from office. It's not like I didn't expect this outcome, I just didn't expect anyone to come out and state it so plainly. We are well and truly hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:45
|
|
|
Karia posted:So which would McConnell rather have, a 49-51 vote against, or 50-50 and Roberts saying no witnesses? If McConnell is confident in Roberts, it wouldn't suprise me to give Murkowski a pass too, he could spin it as the Chief Justice giving the trial his blessing. 49-51, not close, if it was 50-50 and Roberts puts his thumbs on the scale like that it makes it way easier to pack the courts
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:46
|
|
|
Roberts doesn't have the authority to break 50-50 ties, I don't think. The Vice President explicitly does in votes other than impeachment, but there's nothing in the Constitution, or law, or impeachment rules that gives the Chief Justice that power. A 50-50 vote just loses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:51
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Roberts doesn't have the authority to break 50-50 ties, I don't think. The Vice President explicitly does in votes other than impeachment, but there's nothing in the Constitution, or law, or impeachment rules that gives the Chief Justice that power. A 50-50 vote just loses. nah, lack of constitutional authority doesn't rule it out. Chase did it in the Johnson impeachment, it's a famous precedent. If the Senate doesn't like whatever he does they can overrule him by majority. It's just that nothing requires him to cast that vote. He could refuse to instead, which effectively results in the 50-50 motion dying due to procedure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:53
|
|
|
I dont understand how any rational person can vote no on witnesses and think thats justice. Even if your mind is made up, you're just ignoring existing evidence blatantly. I dont get how thinking people think this is ok. It also super pisses me off that the Mueller Report is enough to impeach as well, but folks just forget about that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:54
|
|
|
PepsiOverCoke posted:I dont understand how any rational person can vote no on witnesses and think thats justice. Even if your mind is made up, you're just ignoring existing evidence blatantly. I dont get how thinking people think this is ok. They don't, which is why forcing them to vote it down is going to play very, very poorly for them in their re-election campaigns
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:55
|
|
|
So does Susan Collins think her "well at least I tried" Gambit is gonna work? Also, why didn't murkowski just get it over with at the same time as Alexander? Is she playing up the "I internally struggled with it for a long time" schtick? I loving hate these people
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:55
|
|
|
PepsiOverCoke posted:I dont understand how any rational person can vote no on witnesses and think thats justice. Even if your mind is made up, you're just ignoring existing evidence blatantly. I dont get how thinking people think this is ok. Oh they know. They don’t care.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:56
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Wins how? If its effectively legal for a Republican President to do anything without consequences or oversight, why would they not take every possible unethical course of action to rig the next election? Yup. This is the point I've been trying to drive home since the Mueller stuff. They're absolutely going to go in a thousand times harder against Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:56
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Roberts doesn't have the authority to break 50-50 ties, I don't think. The Vice President explicitly does in votes other than impeachment, but there's nothing in the Constitution, or law, or impeachment rules that gives the Chief Justice that power. A 50-50 vote just loses. During Impeachment, Roberts does have the ability to break ties, but it will make him squirm to do so. The Vice President is removed from that responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:56
|
|
|
Lemming posted:They don't, which is why forcing them to vote it down is going to play very, very poorly for them in their re-election campaigns Of course, the onus is on the Democratic Party to both make sure they don't and nominate someone who can actually beat that fat gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:56
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:So does Susan Collins think her "well at least I tried" Gambit is gonna work? she might be legit figuring out what she wants to do but Same.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:57
|
|
|
The thing that's the most hosed up about Lamar Alexander is he's not even running for reelection. He doesn't even have the fig leaf of being afraid of primary voters to hide behind, he's just a pure "executive beyond the reach of the Senate" coward. I really don't get it. Why even be a Senator if all you want to do is cede power to someone else?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:59
|
|
|
PepsiOverCoke posted:I dont understand how any rational person can vote no on witnesses and think thats justice. Even if your mind is made up, you're just ignoring existing evidence blatantly. I dont get how thinking people think this is ok. A "...rational person...." is not an elected person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:59
|
|
|
Abner Assington posted:The collective goldfish memory of the American electorate combined with the temporal distortion created by the insane frequency of crimes and generally hosed up poo poo the administration does makes me think people will barely remember this come November. That works for Trump, I don't think it's going to work for Senators. It didn't work for them in the House, and I don't see any reason why this particularly effective one won't work there too. It's going to be a sledgehammer against any of the Senators who are in states that aren't already completely hosed for Trump Edit: to be clear, the impact of impeachment was never going to be on Trump specifically, it was to cement every single GOP gently caress as being his personal toad
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 06:02
|
|
|
Lemming posted:They don't, which is why forcing them to vote it down is going to play very, very poorly for them in their re-election campaigns Lmao no it wont. Republican voters are loving idiots and will turn out no matter what. They have the memory of a goddam goldfish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 06:05
|
|
|
Djarum posted:These loving idiots just opened a pandora's box. I kind of hope Bernie wins and just goes hog wild. They'd definitely vote to impeach him, though, and it's clear that they don't give a poo poo about consistency between impeachments. I'd welcome God Emperor Sanders, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
I guess they have Lamar Alexander's vote for censure. I imagine they'd get the other three wafflers too, plus Manchin and Sinema. I hope Warren, Klob and Sanders band together to propose a censure vote immediately after acquittal. Censure matters. It makes it way tougher to run ads this fall calling impeachment (and Muller) a sham. It makes it way easier to point to all Rs that claimed "perfect call" as unfit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 06:06
|
|