US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[aygart]

This is the guy I said to watch. What is he saying? He did it but not impeachable?

“There is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the U.S. Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense,” Alexander, who’s retiring at the end of this term, said in a statement.

I the longer statement he says something along the lines of "it contributed" but that it is not impeachable. A few seem to be going along that route that there is no need for Bolton to testify since even if it is true or is not train to impeach. The dems made a poor case for that.

[zh cohen]

This is the guy I said to watch. What is he saying? He did it but not impeachable?

“There is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the U.S. Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense,” Alexander, who’s retiring at the end of this term, said in a statement.

Full statement -

I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the U.S. Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.
There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine.

There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a "mountain of overwhelming evidence."

There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.

It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation.

When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.

But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year's ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did.

I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.

The Senate has spent nine long days considering this "mountain" of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president’s lawyers, their answers to senators' questions and the House record.

Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution's "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" standard for an impeachable offense.

The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles.

If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist.

It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.
Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with "the consent of the governed," not at the pleasure of the United States Congress.

Let the people decide.

[Jellybelly]

I heard Pelosi is already working on the next impeachment

[yossig]

I heard Pelosi is already working on the next impeachment

Yes
1st charge is for colluding with McConnell
2nd charge is for directing the murder of a few innocent ppl in a Baghdad airport
Still working on 3rd one
If you know of a whistleblower that wants to come forward pls PM me (name will stay confidential)

[Yammer]

Impeachment: Stick a fork in it. 

So the thread is closing down?

I heard Pelosi is already working on the next impeachment

If she was to redo the impeachment in a non Partisan way bring it on...

[aygart]

Impeachment: Stick a fork in it. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/murkowski-comes-out-against-impeachment-witnesses-putting-trump-on-path-to-acquittal

[CountValentine]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/murkowski-comes-out-against-impeachment-witnesses-putting-trump-on-path-to-acquittal

We already new that.
Sad day when you can have a trail and not allow witnesses.

[whYME]

Sad day when you can have a trail and not allow witnesses.

*additional witnesses.

They had the testimony of all the witnesses they chose to call in the House. The Senate shouldn't be doing the House's job here. Their job is to try the case presented by the House, not build a case because the House failed.

That being said, I feel like it's probably a strategic mistake on the part of the Rs to not allow witnesses.

[aygart]

We already new that.
Sad day when you can have a trail and not allow witnesses.

Her point is that it was never a trial to start but rather a partisan endevour.

[Jellybelly]

We already new that.
Sad day when you can have a trail and not allow witnesses.

Did you feel that way during the House proceedings?

[CountValentine]

Her point is that it was never a trial to start but rather a partisan endevour.

The only trial part is the senate. You can still be partisan and have a fair trail. The overwhelming (massive) of the US wants witnesses because they understand as anyone with common sense knows you need witnesses for a fair trial.

[CountValentine]

Did you feel that way during the House proceedings?

What are you talking about? They had witnesses for the house part.

[whYME]

What are you talking about? They had witnesses for the house part.

And those witnesses' testimony was used in the Senate trial. If they felt they needed more witnesses they should've called them in the House.

[aygart]

[CountValentine]

Here goes the Trump lawyers, "but officer he was speeding to". ROFLMAO!!!

[CountValentine]

Even highly respected conservative R's are speaking out. I am sure the Kool-Aid drinkers will attack him just like they are attacking an ulta-conservative like Bolton.
John Kelly: Impeachment trial without witnesses is ‘a job only half done’

[CountValentine]

Stupidity needs to be called out no matter what side it comes from.

"It is a sad day for America to see Senator McConnell humiliate the Chief Justice of the United States into presiding over a vote which rejected our nation's judicial norms, precedents and institutions which uphold the Constitution and the rule of law," Pelosi wrote on Twitter Saturday morning.

[Jellybelly]

Romney was just disinvited from this yrs CPAC convention

[Jellybelly]

Marie yovanovitch has retired from the state department. I wonder how many more casualties there will be...

[aygart]

https://theconversation.com/amp/humans-are-hardwired-to-dismiss-facts-that-dont-fit-their-worldview-127168