If you look at Senate rules for impeachment........
?? Theory ??
Then the military is in control! There is no way around the whole nation and world, seeing all of the evidence! Read the Senate rules! They can’t bypass the defense getting their day in court, the way the house did! There is no way, the Senate wanted this! Trump is in complete control of the narrative! I think the military is running Washington!
Ummm - that is not quite how it works. You are sort of right though. The house brings the charges against the President (that is the impeachment part, and is not a trial). So the house is like the prosecution.
The senate holds the trial of the impeachment charges. The President is the defendant, and his lawyers argue against the charges. The senators are the judge and jury in that sense.
There is no way to skip the trial, and it has nothing to do with the military being in control or not. A trial would maybe represent a chance for a lot of election fraud evidence to be presented as part of the President's defense.
Interesting note: Roberts has already said he won't preside over an impeachment trial - which makes things interesting since only the chief justice is allowed to preside over an impeachment trial. I have no idea how that will work out.
Hey maybe Ole Joe will get confused and think he’s being impeached, over HB’s laptop erections....
Something something 2 birds 1 stoned
"get two birds stoned at once"
: )
Updated for quoting Trailer Park Boys
Ricky!!!
Salute the marines...
I remember a lot of "how do you introduce evidence legally", could this be the way?
There has to be a few Q posts that could help connect those dots, don't have the time to search.
https://qanon.pub/#3850 here is a good start Did 'Impeachment' provide a platform to discuss findings of Ukraine? How do you introduce evidence legally?
Deff referring to 2020 impeachment but I don't think they're were able to introduce much, conversation got put on Ukraine and biden involvement but the momentum went against trump on it
Let's stop this. This impeachment is ONLY about the Jan. 6 "incitement". NOTHING ELSE. No election fraud. AT FUCKING ALL. No "introduce shit" in any way. Its a trial dealing with just ONE CHARGE.
Is anyone even following what's going on in real life?
I’m an attorney and practiced most of my 25 years in Federal court. Should be the Chief Justice who presides. Not sure if Roberts recused himself but if so great. Maybe we get Alito or Thomas. If so, they decide what is relevant evidence- not you or me. That’s REAL LIFE. ?
I love it when the media alleges that anyone anywhere near anything deemed "Qanon" is a certified lunatic, but when you occasionally see peoples occupations, you realize there are a lot of highly qualified and "professional" individuals among us...
Millennial artist housewife here, I have never fit inside anyone's particular box lol
Engineer checking in, lol
occupational therapist here!! i think "THEY" think we are all duck dynasty rejects who live in the woods and on farms with our cousin-wives/brother-husbands, cleaning guns and cracking bud lights.
Hey, duck dynasty is the best, come on, man ??
Lol yeah, that's not even close! I don't even drink, just drugs for me please.
Well, I am not an attorney, but I can read. And comprehend. From SCOTUS site, just now:
The Senate’s standing rules for impeachment trials make no distinction between the powers of the chief justice presiding in an impeachment and those of any other officer in the same role. The job is referred to throughout as “Presiding Officer” and its authority is the same regardless of who holds it. The rules nominally give the presiding officer considerable power, including the power to issue “orders, mandates, writs, and precepts” (Rule V), to “direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying and impeachment” (Rule VII), and to “rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence” (Rule VII). But in every case, this apparent authority is subject to the critical limitation that the presiding officer may only act in accordance with the will of the Senate.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/the-role-of-the-chief-justice-in-an-impeachment-trial/
IF Roberts recuses himself, and we still have no official line on this, but IF. Then its Senate's prerogative to select who presides. Recusal opens up possibilities, including no one on SCOTUS. To anyone in Senate. So, not sure what you're saying.
I WISH its either Alito or Thomas, still not sure about the other 3. But reality is different.
shit, then who appoints? mitch the bitch? kneepads? chuckee erection?
TBH, this position is really absolutely irrelevant. SCOTUS blog (above) clearly states that the position is just as an observer of proceedings and serves no other means. Doesn't even have to be a judge, just someone in Senate. I am guessing, and again only IF Roberts recuses himself, that Chucky and McConnell will move to appoint someone. I am also guessing that none of the SCOTUS conservative judges will be considered. Doesn't really matter in the end. I cannot imagine that someone like Thomas or Alito would even want to preside at an ILLEGAL impeachment trial while having absolutely no way to interfere and set things straight. Watching 50+ utter idiots play out illegal circus would be a maddening experience for any real attorney, and judge. Torture, really. Rand Paul already stated this is what Roberts told him as his reason to recuse himself. Questionable, sure, but I'll go with Rand's statement for now.
In the end, the ONLY decision that matters is the final vote after the trial. 67 Yays. VP cannot vote. Senators only.
Traditionally, it was chief justice. So, Roberts or not, it really doesn't matter in the end. Chucky and McConnell will set some more rules, I am sure, but in general, Senate impeachment rules are already mostly spelled out (~20 pages worth). I know that many keep on thinking that Trump will be allowed to present election fraud facts, but the reality is that Senate sets the rules for what can be presented, or not, and the only charge the House voted on is "incitement for riot". Doesn't matter what Trump said at the rally, they will only concentrate on what they want, incitement. You know, his call to come to D.C. for a rally on Jan. 6. And nothing else.
Reality. Sad one. Sometimes what we want and expect, and wish for, by law, is not what we actually get. As long as GOPe holds steady, Chucky and McConnell won't be able to convict.
However, everything he said in his speech is pertinent. President Trump talked about the election fraud and the foreign interference. They will need to prove he spoke lies or if he spoke the truth.
Yes... and everyone around us there was saying why is he saying this because we all already knew what he said.
Anyone I've said "he literally called for peaceful protests" come back with "well he's been inciting violence with false election fraud claims he has no proof of."
I know you don't want to feel naive/vulnerable and I get that but technically it's the ONLY defense. They know he used the words "peaceful protest."
Americans have the right to protest/ensemble -> Trump called for his supporters to exercise that right peacefully -> Present evidence of radical leftist/foreign interference in protests actually inciting the violence -> Present evidence of radical leftist/foreign interference via election fraud showing there was no other way he incited violence because he was not spreading false information and has a right to free speech, simultaneously tying both arguments back on to the accusers themselves.
It seems the MO of the radical left is to accuse the other side of pretty much the exact same thing that they are doing. Like the Russia hoax for example.
Actually We don't as we have Only the Rights that the Corporation of the United States of America says we have! So if the Corporation says we are trespassing we are violating their law.
Well, big words and all. Have you actually read the impeachment rules and how things work prior to your expert assessment posted here? Kind of sad to see the down votes, clearly says how poorly educated and misinformed some on this board are while claiming otherwise.
Read the rules doc, point out just where it says that it is not the Senate that sets the rules for the trial. And what they will discuss, or not. After court after court refused to listen to voter fraud you now somehow deluded enough to think that Senate, of all places, will now want to hear any of it? Educate yourself, its just roughly 20 pages long. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
dude, you need a cookie and a nap. btw when you use the words "educate yourself" it makes people turn right the fuck off. we are discussing this, some maybe havent read all that you have, maybe we will get to that, maybe we wont, but its not worth getting all angsty on us.
Take your beef to the mods, then. They keep telling people, in a big, bright red stickie, almost daily, that people need to do their own research, as well as use Search function prior to posting.
When an attorney with a 25 years of experience doesn't understand what both Senate impeachment rules book and SCOTUS blog clearly spell out, do you still think people are informed? Should not they be pointed to the facts rather than keeping quiet and let myth and suppositions promulgate themselves ad naseum, in thread after thread?
I am not in to PC, never was and never will be. So, since the title of the thread is "Senate rules for impeachment", how many posting int thread have actually read the damn thing prior to posting? Obviously, not many. Its just 20 pages or so.
Ironic, isn't it.
Yeah, I understand what you mean about people doing their own research, im just saying your grouchy delivery doesn't really help push your message. And let's be honest, whats the point of senate rules if no one ever actually follows them or bastardizes them so much they become irrelevant. Like this impeachment process as a whole so far.
Isn't that what I stated about Senate and their utter disregard of laws? Nothing new by now. Have no idea why so many people somehow trust Chucky to do what we expect and not what he wants. Our "wants" and reality are 2 very different things. Unfortunately.
Curious if the military has already seized control because of election fraud. They will allow this to go to the ‘trial’ to let the population see all the fraud committed. The ‘trial’ may be a psyop for the military to get the info to the masses. It may change from a impeachment trial to a military trial
It is his job. Let Roberts be exposed for who he is. Delay tactics. If he rules against POTUS he loses his job because then the military will be in full force. If he follows the law and rules in favor of POTUS he loses everything, but dies with his reputation. The cabal will blame him for turning on them. Never make a deal with the devil. This is interesting.popcorn anyone?
Chief Justice presided over impeachment of president.. this is not a presidential impeachment as Trump is not president ;)
That was Before the Steal and Before his dirty laundry was hung out. Different circumstances altogether.
Please let it be so, Lord!
America will be dismantled in less than ONE year. We cannot wait 4 years
Having a third party would be political suicide. You would never win enough electoral college votes because you would rarely get more than 50% of the votes needed to win. More likely Trump's plan is to snuff out the Republican party entirely and replace it with the Patriot party.
If you think a third party is a good idea, look at what's happened in the past. Remember Ross Perot, anyone?
100%
Patriot party only succeeds if at worst it takes 90 of Rs.
Best case we get Rs, and some from the rest of the pie.
Go orangepill people
Under their Rigged system-Yes! But under the Republic For the United States of America and Separated from their Corrupt two party monopoly We the People Will once again Freely choose Our President!
You should take your own advice.
The Whig Party imploded on itself because the leadership ignored the will of its members and protected slavery because it lined their own pocketbooks. Abolitionists formed the Free Soil Party and later absorbed enough Whigs in its ranks that the Whig Party fell apart practically overnight. The Free Soil Party changed its name to the Republican Party.
The Patriot Party could do the same thing right now.
All of this is moot until voting fraud issues are fixed, of course.
Right now the country is divided. I'm not sure there are enough people awake yet to make this work. Perhaps down the road, but not at this moment in time. There's only two years until the next big election, which isn't much time to regroup and start another party from scratch.
93 senators voted to certify Arizona.
I don't think the Senate wants anything that we do. Perhaps they have no choice to hear the defense but Id say it's a real stretch thinking they want it.
Of course they did because Dominion (and related affiliates) put them in office in the first place. Uniparty needs mostly equal Ds and Rs to keep people distracted fighting over meaningless issues.
They have dropped any pretenses of representation of the people.
I sorta disagree. The Senators, by simple majority vote, can determine what they do or don't hear. If the Dems come together as a group, as they usually do, then the fifty of them, with #HeelsUp giving the tie-breaker, can decide NOT to hear any election (or FISAgate) material.
And, IMO, with a Liberal judge presiding, he or she won't bother with the Constitutionality of the impeachment.
I sure as hell hope so, that election bill they are passing is eliminating any resemblance of a fair election ever again!
Impeachment is about the 6th protest, protest was against the fraudulent electoral votes, fraudulent electoral votes was about election fraud, election fraud is about Dems cheating. It’s all related, so if they get their chance to present they will present it all.
I agree. I don’t think they will present voter fraud evidence.
BUT, they will be able to present evidence of antifa/BLM planning this attack well in advance. And supposedly Pelosi already had articles of impeachment written up, so that means she was involved in planning the attack.
Important to note that Trump classified antifa as a terrorist organization the day before the Capitol attack. So we potentially have a case of Pelosi and others working with terrorists to plan this attack so they could blame Trump supporters and set up Trump for an impeachment.
If Pelosi's laptop had emails engaging in the planning of the 6th incursion into the Capitol, that could be introduced into evidence at the trial.
If they have direct evidence of Pelosi and other politicians conspiring with Antifa (terrorists) to storm the Capitol to frame Trump, then yes, I think it absolutely matters what evidence they present. Otherwise, I agree with you.
We still don’t know what happened to the laptops and hard drives that day. I’ve heard they may have been confiscated by Special Forces. The FBI tried to pin it on some lady in Virginia but that turned out to be false.
My theory is that we may see some action during the trial as the Senate will all be there, especially the D's.
I hate predictions but if kinda makes sense.
Did anyone think that during the Senate trial, the defense can introduce DS coms that show that they organized the Capitol incursion?
Did McConnell say when he was leader that there would not impeaching going on as a reverse psychology tactic to get the dems to call an impeachment hearing?
ok...so isn't "impeachment" itself the process whereby someone is removed from office? how can you remove someone who supposedly isn't in an office, thereby subject to a removal? anyone know the rule or precedent that applies here?
there’s no such thing as a “shill”. ???? Says the shill.
shut up, shill.
You sound intelligent. But also scared.