Latest Breaking News

FBaggins

(28,706 posts)

28. Which was the point

Wed Jan 8, 2020, 06:10 AM

Jan 2020

We knew all along that the Senate would not convict him (absent something much larger)... so the best result we can hope for is that they pay a political price for it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

46 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

McConnell says he is ready to proceed with Trump impeachment trial with no agreement on witnesses [View all] BKDem Jan 2020 OP

Second that "GO FUCK HIMSELF!" EOM TruckFump Jan 2020 #1

Adam Schiff should subpoena Bolton for additional House investigation Submariner Jan 2020 #2

This. CrispyQ Jan 2020 #7

This was always the way it would be. mn9driver Jan 2020 #3

It will stain everything they do from this point forward. C_U_L8R Jan 2020 #16

Which was the point FBaggins Jan 2020 #28

Let's Reward Trump For Starting A War With Iran With An..... global1 Jan 2020 #4

Pelosi needs to drag this out as the Republican Senators only goal is not cstanleytech Jan 2020 #5

Does Justice Roberts have ANY say at all in this matter? LiberalLovinLug Jan 2020 #6

No COLGATE4 Jan 2020 #8

Why is he even there then? LiberalLovinLug Jan 2020 #9

Because the Constitution says that he must preside COLGATE4 Jan 2020 #10

Rehnquist was a pretentious asshole. BKDem Jan 2020 #17

For sure. COLGATE4 Jan 2020 #20

Senate majority trumps all bucolic_frolic Jan 2020 #11

Akerman should've taken a moment to refresh his memory of the Senate rules. onenote Jan 2020 #36

AFAIK, Roberts will decide if a witness can be called DeminPennswoods Jan 2020 #15

Always Changing the Rules Roy Rolling Jan 2020 #12

+1,,,,,, Like if you can't win fair, gerrymander! Can the senate proceed with the trial without mitch96 Jan 2020 #30

But it's all up to Nancy, not Mitch, when the House sends over the articles of impeachment. pnwmom Jan 2020 #13

True and i know she will HOLD them until bluestarone Jan 2020 #14

It's actually up to a few GOP senators Miguelito Loveless Jan 2020 #18

Laurence Tribe, Constitutional Law professor at Harvard, says they would need 67 votes, pnwmom Jan 2020 #19

Ah, thank you... Miguelito Loveless Jan 2020 #23

Tribe is incorrect.....and Sen.Reid, as Senate leader shows he's wrong AncientGeezer Jan 2020 #32

Tribe explained that precedent-breaking impeachment rule changes require 67 votes. pnwmom Jan 2020 #34

No the SCOTUS didn't address it..that's the problem with following Tribe AncientGeezer Jan 2020 #35

And I'm supposed to believe you instead of the Constitutional law professor because? pnwmom Jan 2020 #39

It would require McConnell to invoke the "nuclear" option onenote Jan 2020 #37

"McConnell hasn't floated the idea..." SCOTUS nominees ring a bell? AncientGeezer Jan 2020 #40

I don't think you understood my post. onenote Jan 2020 #41

I understood it....I also know he's willing to nuke the rules..and has. AncientGeezer Jan 2020 #42

Since it now appears Pelosi is ready to send the articles up, its a moot point. onenote Jan 2020 #43

Agreed.... AncientGeezer Jan 2020 #44

I always had my doubts about the endgame onenote Jan 2020 #45

The oppo to that was always going to be the Rep.Schiff-Nadler restrictions on R witnesess. AncientGeezer Jan 2020 #46

What is the opposite of railroading a criminal? machI Jan 2020 #21

Show trial? BKDem Jan 2020 #22

People talk about Trump becoming amcgrath Jan 2020 #24

Amidst the wag the dog re-election campaign noise truthisfreedom Jan 2020 #25

Let's face it. It's not Trump who is on trial, here. dchill Jan 2020 #26

So he'll have a trial with no articles of impeachment and no prosecutors? Kablooie Jan 2020 #27

No. He hasn't said that. onenote Jan 2020 #38

Wonder how much money putin and the prince and other help duforsure Jan 2020 #29

Fine. The House should delay and collect more evidence. Yavin4 Jan 2020 #31

Sorry, turtle boy. It isn't your call. paleotn Jan 2020 #33