Cocaine Mitch back at it again!

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
8,936
4,012
743
50
#42
Seriously though, how would censure have damaged him?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
A censure is documented disapproval. Congress can make their voice heard. Basically a historical entry, but no it wouldn't remove anyone. Impeachment never meant removal, but without the effort to remove, I'm not sure what the point of impeachment was.

With the way the Senate was stacked and unwilling to hear evidence and as McConnell said, coordinating with the White House, there was no path to get a removal from office.

Both sides of the legislature spend a ton of time playing the media grandstanding game in lieu of legislating. And the public keeps voting jackass party hacks like Pelosi and McConnell in.
But according to the house there was already enough evidence (documentation) and witnesses to bring the charges. Why should there be more?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
8,698
7,018
1,743
Piedmont, OK
#43
Seriously though, how would censure have damaged him?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
A censure is documented disapproval. Congress can make their voice heard. Basically a historical entry, but no it wouldn't remove anyone. Impeachment never meant removal, but without the effort to remove, I'm not sure what the point of impeachment was.

With the way the Senate was stacked and unwilling to hear evidence and as McConnell said, coordinating with the White House, there was no path to get a removal from office.

Both sides of the legislature spend a ton of time playing the media grandstanding game in lieu of legislating. And the public keeps voting jackass party hacks like Pelosi and McConnell in.
But according to the house there was already enough evidence (documentation) and witnesses to bring the charges. Why should there be more?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
As much as I'm not really thrilled about no witnesses bring called, the Dems were incredibly stupid to bring it to the Senate with their "iron clad" attitude then throw a fit that witnesses weren't called. Either you have an iron clad case or you don't. It can't be both...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
Sep 29, 2011
761
148
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#44
Seriously though, how would censure have damaged him?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
A censure is documented disapproval. Congress can make their voice heard. Basically a historical entry, but no it wouldn't remove anyone. Impeachment never meant removal, but without the effort to remove, I'm not sure what the point of impeachment was.

With the way the Senate was stacked and unwilling to hear evidence and as McConnell said, coordinating with the White House, there was no path to get a removal from office.

Both sides of the legislature spend a ton of time playing the media grandstanding game in lieu of legislating. And the public keeps voting jackass party hacks like Pelosi and McConnell in.
But according to the house there was already enough evidence (documentation) and witnesses to bring the charges. Why should there be more?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
As much as I'm not really thrilled about no witnesses bring called, the Dems were incredibly stupid to bring it to the Senate with their "iron clad" attitude then throw a fit that witnesses weren't called. Either you have an iron clad case or you don't. It can't be both...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
FWIW, the Senate has never heard from “new” witnesses in an impeachment trial. Not their job to uncover new evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
72,594
51,250
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#45
FWIW, the Senate has never heard from “new” witnesses in an impeachment trial. Not their job to uncover new evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Dems could have filed suit and gone to court and had a judge rule as to whether or not new witnesses must be heard. They chose not to. Why?
 
Aug 16, 2012
2,125
1,113
743
56
#46
The Dems could have filed suit and gone to court and had a judge rule as to whether or not new witnesses must be heard. They chose not to. Why?
????
How can a judge make a determination as to what is right or wrong when each house establishes all the rules for their respective roles?? There is no constitutional or legal definition to inner workings of the process so a judge would have no authority to decide anything
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
72,594
51,250
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#47
????
How can a judge make a determination as to what is right or wrong when each house establishes all the rules for their respective roles?? There is no constitutional or legal definition to inner workings of the process so a judge would have no authority to decide anything
That is exactly, precisely why they didn't.
 
Sep 29, 2011
761
148
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#49
FWIW, the Senate has never heard from “new” witnesses in an impeachment trial. Not their job to uncover new evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Dems could have filed suit and gone to court and had a judge rule as to whether or not new witnesses must be heard. They chose not to. Why?
Actually, the House Dems could have gone to court seeking to compel the Executive branch to produce witnesses and documents. They chose not to, probably in an effort to add Obstruction to the impeachment charges.
I actually think the Dems probably didn’t really want the Senate to call witnesses for two reasons. 1. They didn’t want the whistleblower, Biden or Schiff testifying, and 2. They needed a reason to insist the Senate trial, and certain acquittal under almost any circumstance, was tainted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aug 16, 2012
2,125
1,113
743
56
#50
Actually, the House Dems could have gone to court seeking to compel the Executive branch to produce witnesses and documents. They chose not to, probably in an effort to add Obstruction to the charges.
I actually think the Dems probably didn’t really want the Senate to call witnesses for two reasons. 1. They didn’t want the whistleblower, Biden or Schiff testifying, and 2. They needed a reason to insist the Senate trial, and certain acquittal, was tainted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Please cite the law(s) that establish the protocol for a Senate impeachment proceeding.

There are none. The House has free rein to run their inquiry as they see fit, the Senate does as well. There are no written rules, only that each house has a distinct role.

A judge at any level has absolutely no jurisdiction on the proceedings. Not only could they not make a ruling, they could not even hear the case since they have no jurisdiction.