GOP Senator Puts Nancy Pelosi on Notice; No Articles by Monday, He Will Introduce Measure to Dismiss

He's already been invited. Too late without making herself looking like even more of a self serving and partisan hack.

 

There is precedence for the motion to dismiss the charges or articles. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd proposed such a motion prior to Bill Clinton's trial. It takes a simple majority to dismiss the charges, 51 votes. Byrd's motion was defeated mainly because the Republicans controlled the senate at that time.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-jan-23-mn-871-story.html

https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/25/transcripts/dismiss.html

If Senator Hawley introduces such a motion, the Democrats have only themselves to blame. First is Pelosi withholding the articles and second is the democrats own precedence setting motion to dismiss back in 1999. I suspect if Hawley carries through with this motion, the democrats with rant, rave, holler, condemn, etc, etc, etc. But this has been done before, by the Democrats. I'm old fashioned here, I go by the motto that is what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the Democrats can introduce such a motion, why not the Republicans?

 

The only people she really has to please in this decision is her caucus and for the most part she has to worry about her moderates and freshmen ( and as a secondary matter she has to take some cues for Schumer and her legal team?. She will release them when her caucus starts feeling pressure in their districts, otherwise she will hold them to maximize leverage for Schumer. As for justifying the delay, she still has legal challenges to some of her subpoenas that have to 'work their way' to resolution. She simply needs all that testimony for her managers to build their best case and she intends to provide time for House managers to get those later depositions, detailing the first hand knowledge that Trump's defenders claim are missing. If the Senate won't provide for access by allowing those witnesses , she can still have them called into House hearings.

 

Hmm.. which ones? The only one that I'm aware of is McGahn, and she's going to have trouble if she's says she's waiting for that resolution for McGahn specifically, since he's not associated with Ukraine.

If she plans on using an eventual McGahn ruling that "absolute immunity" is "absolute BS", who is she going to call as a result of that? Mulvaney? The 2 no-names Blair and Duffey?

I'm just not seeing the end game there... But she's a lot smarter than I am... I know Schiff said investigations would be continuing, but I assumed that meant McGahn and Emoluments and other things... If Nancy holds these articles in order to get Schumers 4 witnesses for House depositions (months later), I fear that's not going to play well with those in the middle...

But still better than a no-witness trial...

 

You forgot to read the question I was responding to.

 

Wasn't prior to the trial... it was 2+ weeks into it...

But notice that the D Byrd could at least publicly admit wrongdoing on Slick Willie's part

SNIP
“I plan to make this motion not because I believe that the president did no wrong,” Byrd said. “In fact, I think he has caused his family, his friends and this nation great pain. I believe that he has weakened the already fragile public trust that has been placed in his care.”
ENDSNIP

Just sayin'

 

Sure you can move for a dismissal. Mid-trial! Look at when Byrd made that motion, AFTER the articles of impeachment are received, after House managers have been appointed. After opening statements have been presented. After some of the witnesses have been questions and their answers presented to the 'jurors'. You don't dismiss articles before they have even been transferred, before there is even a prosecuting team providing the foundation for their basic case.

Now I suppose the senate could 'deem' the articles to be received, and deem the case insufficient before it has even been presented before a legal team has a chance to build a case, , and then dismiss but they have to know what is in them, and use them as the indictment for the purposes of considering how good they are before deciding them lacking. That very decision undermines the claim that the impeachment process was impeded by Pelosi's refusal to transmit. I highly doubt you can find the votes for that vote.

 

I would fully expect them to do the same thing...… When they get the articles.

 

You can't force self incrimination. That is not how this country works.

 

Nancy is a treasonous snake along with most of the demoncat party

 

You must be joking, Nancy Pelosi has no Botox in her face at all. If you want to see a woman's Botox'd face, look at Melania Trump. She's the poster child for Botox.

 

You may be 100% right. I think we are going to agree on one thing. Pelosi has proven to be the smartest person in Washington since she was re-elected. Her instincts on how to handle Donald Trump and how to manage the conflicting interests in her caucus and the issue of impeachment have been virtually perfect. If she says its smarter to hold them, its going to be because the most vulnerable members of her caucus are on board for a better time with stronger evidence continuing to pile in. Likewise if she decides to do the opposite and transfer them its because the House managers-to-be are on board with sending them. She is listening to the right people, because she listens to the right people before she makes all these calls.

I think we just have to trust the same person who has been hitting runs and knowing when to bunt, successfully all game long, to do the same thing in the bottom of the ninth!

 

Find another profession. When the Court, sua sponte, issues a directed verdict it means the prosecution hasn't made a case and that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis to proceed.

 

The Constitution is moot on what's going on. Outside the house will or can impeach and then the senate will hold the trial. I don't think the framers ever though the games being played today would ever be played. Withholding the articles and an attempt to dismiss. I think the idea was once the house impeached the senate would hold the trial without delay. No withholding the articles and no attempt at dismissal without a full trial.

No where does the Constitution state that, but I sure would say that was the original intent of the framers.

Personally, I hate these partisan games. Probably because I'm not a party animal, it seems as time goes by I get more and more disgusted with both major parties. This playing of partisan games have been going on since the day after the election. Far as I'm concerned the Mueller report ended it all. If there was something in that Mueller report that the Democrats thought was impeachable, then they should have begun immediate official impeachment hearing the day after they received the report. They didn't which leads to the conclusion that as far as the democrats were concerned, Mueller was a dud.

I'm just sick and tired of it all. I don't care if Trump goes or if he stays. It would be different if I thought his departure would cure the divisiveness, the polarization, the mega high partisanship of today's political era. It won't. Trump is but a symptom of that. Things will only get worse regardless of who wins this impeachment fight, who wins in 2020 or in the near future.

 

Nancy has few brains in her head and not a decent honest bone in her body. She is a disgrace.

 

I kind of feel the same way and I thought Nancy had it under control until I saw the whistleblower memo. I thought oh,oh, somethings not right. Then came the phone call and I told my wife "she has to impeach him now or the Dem party is cooked." Sometimes you just have to do the right thing even though you know you are going to lose.
In the long run I think vast majority of people know Trump is guilty and now the Republicans are in that same box.

 

Looks like the un-peachment is turning into a big fat turd for the dems.

 

If you look at the impeachment and removal numbers, so far they haven't hurt Trump or the Democrats for that matter. Here's the numbers broken down via party. Make of them what you may, but I'd pay attention to the independent numbers since there are a lot of them in neither the pro nor the anti Trump camps.

Impeachment hearings began on 13 Nov 2019 vs. 4 Jan 2020

Trump’s approval 13 Nov 43.9%, 4 Jan 45.1%


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html


13 Nov Democrats for impeachment and removal 84%, 4 Jan Democrats for impeachment and removal 83%.


13 Nov Republicans for impeachment and removal 12%, 4 Jan Republicans for impeachment and removal 9%.


13 Nov Independents for impeachment and removal 38%, 4 Jan Independents for impeachment and removal 42%.


13 Nov Democrats against impeachment and removal 6%, 4 Jan Democrats against impeachment and removal 11%.


13 Nov Republicans against impeachment and removal 80%, 4 Jan Republicans against impeachment and removal 87%.


13 Nov Independents against impeachment and removal 39%, 4 Jan Independents against impeachment and removal 47%.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...ment_and_removal_of_president_trump-6957.html

I'd call this whole ordeal a wash so far. What I think is interesting is that 46% of independents have stated they aren't interested in watching any, part or all the trial with another 30% not sure. Only 24% of independents stated they would watch the trial.

Perhaps like me, impeachment and partisanship fatigue has set in to those who aren't hard core pro or anti Trumpers.

 

I think everyone is pretty well dug in on impeachment the one I found interesting was the one where 70% thought Trump did something wrong.

A slim majority of Americans, 51%, believe Trump’s actions were both wrong and he should be impeached and removed from office. But only 21% of Americans say they are following the hearings very closely.
---------------------
In addition to the 51%, another 19% think that Trump's actions were wrong, but that he should either be impeached by the House but not removed from office, or be neither impeached by the House nor convicted by the Senate.
---------------------------
Then the base.
The survey also finds that 1 in 4 Americans, 25%, think that Trump did nothing wrong.
The other base.
Still, nearly 1 in 3, 32%, say they made up their minds about impeaching the president before the news broke about Trump’s July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy,

 

None of this matters anymore.
McConnell has the votes & there will be no witnesses or subpoena’s.

 

So much for Pelosi's lie on Trump being an "imminent threat". Now, the Democrats excuses for not subpoenaing witnesses is exposed as a lie.

 

The prosecution should be making that assumption to begin with. Why else are there trials? If we simply wanted to accept the prosecution at its word, we'd do that. If there is to be bias in a court room, it should be bias in favor of the defendant. It's the prosecution's job to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt", that yes that person is guilty.

It sounds to me like the Democrats aren't confident that they can do that.

 

So prosecutors are supposed to assume coordination between the jury to be empaneled, and the defense attorneys? Point of the entire voir dire process is to get these kinds of prejudgements out of a trial jury. If you cannot figure out that defense counsel reminding a jury of the burden of proof to convict in a criminal case, in open court and the defense counsel talking to perspective jurors outside the courtroom, outside the ear of the judge and prosecutors and plotting strategies for weeks to undermine, and castrate the prosecutors before the opening statements of the trial are even prepared, you are beyond help.

No the House cannot feel 'confident' when the jurors proclaim their intention to nullify publicly before the judge even gets his black robe cleaned and pressed. that kind of a rigged, staged and ludicrous show does not resemble a trial,

 

District attorney's do it all the time, the smart ones even recommend not prosecuting weak cases, it could otherwise prosecute for lack of evidence. Hmm, that sounds familiar.

 

The post to you still applies.