Wed
Dec 18 2019
08:27 pm
By: R. Neal

House votes yes on both articles of impeachment. Surprise suprise! Trump makes history! He must be so proud.

R. Neal's picture

We were watching the last

We were watching the last impeachment vote against Clinton on Dec. 19. Trump beat him by one day. Another win for Trump! Oh, and Trump scored his impeachment in his first term. Clinton's was in his second term. Another win for Trump! Are we tired of winning yet?

Mike Daugherty's picture

Tulsi Gabbard voted

Tulsi Gabbard voted 'present'.I think she will go from Democratic candidate to Independent third party candidate and could be the 2020 Jill Stein. She could prove Hillary was right in saying Gabbard is a Russian asset for 2020 election knowingly or not. Tulsi is not a dummy and she must know she does not stand a chance of actually winning. She should know that her candidacy would help Trump.

bizgrrl's picture

His head is going to explode.

His head is going to explode. Keep an eye on his
tweets.

jmcnair's picture

"Doesn't feel like impeachment"

NBC was split-screening the debate and vote with tRump at his rally in Michigan. He still seemed pretty oblivious to the reality catching up to him.

calloway1972's picture

I frequently see these "O my

I frequently see these "O my God trump's head is exploding" comments from you guys… but it is pretty obvious that he is just fucking with you.

And someone needs to make sure that House Democrats are reporting votes to impeach as in-kind donations to the Trump 2020 campaign.

Is this stuff even going to make it to the Senate ? Its so very solemm

calloway1972's picture

I mean .. what if you held an

I mean .. what if you held an impeachment party and no one cared ?

You'll find out soon. And McConnell has been confirming judges throughout this.

fischbobber's picture

Roberts

I believe the only Judge that going to matter is Chief Justice John Roberts.

Frankly, I don't think Bush was trying to burn down the house when he appointed him. I'm pretty sure he has the power to recuse anyone blatantly in violation of their Senate oath. Plus, it looks like six Republicans are going to vote for a real trial in the Senate.

It might be more interesting than it would appear on the surface.

Mike Daugherty's picture

John Roberts has been

John Roberts has been outspoken in his criticism of Trump's view of Obama justices, Bush justices, etc. saying justices should not be perceived that way. I do not agree with Roberts on many issues but I think there is a possibility that he has more integrity than the other conservatives on the court. He could play a much more important role than Rehnquist did in the Clinton impeachment. I think he could influence the rules of the trial proceedings in the Senate.
Former Republican senator Jeff Flake has said that 30 to 35 of his former Republican senate colleagues would vote against Trump if it were a secret ballot. It is very unlikely that Trump will be removed, but it was very unlikely he would be elected. If a few senators from purple states, Collins, Gardner, McSallie, and a few others like Romney or Alexander or Sasse vote on rules for the senate trial it could change the outcome. If 51 senators vote to have a secret ballot on removing Trump it could happen.

There are several Republican Senators that would love to be President. The removal of Trump could clear the way for Romney and others to run. I know that most of the Republican senators would much rather have a real Republican President than have to put up with Trump for another four years. With a real Republican President they might return to a foreign policy that embraced our allies and shunned our enemies like Putin.

fischbobber's picture

Process

It would appear that Justice Roberts would be able to determine recusal rules.This could piss a lot of people off real quick. If he determines that the Senators sworn to their oath are fit, he could also set the quorum at seated Senators. I guess. I don't really know. But the Supreme Court was supposed to have the power to balance the playing field.

It's hard to say what the Senator pool would look like if you culled the whackos. See ya Marsha. Maybe it's not that hard.

I'm really developing a love/hate relationship with Pelosi. This is a valid, but somewhat technical Article. But, she's not only right, she knows how to prove she's right. Grandma just said for the children to leave. Cousin Chief Justice? Would I be out of line to seek your guidance and help as equals?

One, or both, of unprincipled participants in our government process, has got to go. They both seem willing to show themselves out. This will not play out on TV to the Republican's benefit.

Beyond a grasp of what I think should happen, I don't understand the technicalities of a real Impeachment trial. I followed the Clinton impeachment, holding my head in my hands, rocking it back and forth, going "How could you be so stupid?" before my Republican friends figured out what was going on. They're better at remembering than they were at figuring out.

I was in the eighth grade and a political junkie already, when the Watergate hearings began. This is the precedent judicial role in an impeachment hearing. Sirica's role set a standard. I think Robert's role will supersede it.

It's a good time to be a student of the Constitution. There's lots to think about.

Knoxoasis's picture

A modest proposal

First we recuse all the Republicans as partisans who cannot be trusted to vote fairly against Trump.

Next we recuse all the Democrats as partisans who cannot be trusted to vote fairly for Trump.

Then we recuse all the Independents who are running for President against Trump, because duh.

Thus Angus King of Maine is a quorum of one, and he decides whether Trump stays or goes.

fischbobber's picture

Alexander

What are you going to do about Lamar? He's already committed to the process.

As have a majority of the Senators.

You right-wingers are so cute living in your fantasy world where the only reality is the one scurrying around your tiny skulls.

Knoxoasis's picture

It was a joke. Geez

It was a joke. Geez

bizgrrl's picture

+1

+1

Joe328's picture

The Senate makes the rules

The Senate makes the rules and every Senator has a vote. It takes a 2/3 (67) majority vote to convict a president. The Chief Justice cannot make rules or prohibit any Senator from voting.

fischbobber's picture

Every present member

It would appear, from the rules as they are stated, the Chief Justice Roberts would have the same powers as a trial judge. Presumably, that would include the power to recuse anyone in clear violation of their oath to be a fair and impartial juror.

The Senate rules are clear that it takes a 2/3 majority of present members to convict. If 10 were recused that would mean that it would take 60 out of the 90 sitting members to convict.

All of this is hypothetical at this point since there is little precedent that directly relates to what is presently happening. It’s hard to predict what Roberts will actually do, but he doesn’t strike me as a guy that will give up the power the Supreme Court holds to a clearly corrupt president.

I think we may be getting ready to see if our constitution will indeed survive our lifetime.

Joe328's picture

The Chief Justice does not

The Chief Justice does not have the power to recuse any senator. Only a senator has the power to recuse themselves. It's the United States Constitution that requires a 2/3 majority of members present and not Senate rules. The Senate has not written the rules for this impeachment. The rules to be written by the Senate must be followed by the Chief Justice.

fischbobber's picture

The Senate Rules

The Senate Rules give the Chief Justice the power to preside over these hearings with the same powers as any other trial judge in any other court (with rare specific exception). Unless you can provide the rare specific exception that would deny Roberts the power of recusal, then that power still lies with the Chief Justice. I couldn't find it. Nor could I find several other specifics I was looking for in the rules.

Partisans can puff and bloviate all they want, but the uniqueness of this situation dumps quite a bit of power to the Chief Justice specifically, and the Supreme Court to decide on the meaning of the Senate Rules. It's up to Roberts to decide whether that 2/3 number pertains to the entire Senate or members seated for the trial.

Feel free to quote any specific rules pertaining to the trial you feel relevant. I've only had a couple hours available to sift through them so far and having to start from scratch is not the most effective study method. If denying their oath is grounds for recusal, the makeup of the Senate for the trial could change dramatically. While it appears to be Roberts ruling to make, keep in mind it is the Republican Senators actions that would necessitate these measures.

Joe328's picture

According an ABC News report,

According an ABC News report, fifty senators can override any ruling made by the Chief Justice. Now, can you provide any evidence where a Chief Justice dismissed a senator in an impeachment trial? Until you provide a link to a respected website, I do not intend to continue this debate. (link...)

fischbobber's picture

I get your point.

You are correct in your mathematical assertion that there are enough Republicans to override any ruling by Chief Justice Roberts, and turn this proceeding into a clown show at the circus.

My point is that there only has to be 5 Republicans with integrity to keep Senate rules and Roberts power intact. Perhaps you are right and partisan unity now trumps (no pun intended) duty to the constitution and our republic, but I’m going to remain optimistic. A vote to change the rules of a trial in the middle of a trial is different than a vote to convict on impeachment.

I’ve begun studying the rules of impeachment, and I believe Roberts has the power to recuse if a member rejects his oath and duty to be an impartial juror.

Alex_Falk's picture

hmm

rather than becoming armchair experts on constitutional law & spend our time every day consuming and regurgitating the conveyor belt of impeachment content — how about we just take bets?

$100 says trump stays safe in office and is supported by 99% of the GOP as the most (internally) popular president in the history of the party

another $50 says he wins a second term (will adjust this after dem primary)

R. Neal's picture

Wouldn't take those bets.

Wouldn't take those bets.

fischbobber's picture

Better yet....

While we are ignoring our duties and responsibilities as citizens, we could all get out our violins and just fiddle while we watch our constitutional republic burn to the ground.

Mike Daugherty's picture

Definitely no profiles in

Definitely no profiles in courage from the Grand Old Party.

Alex_Falk's picture

don't get it twisted

I'm making a point about mass media saturation / public attention span / political theatre / spectacle

first: If constitutional law / procedure is anyone's personal pet interest or area of expertise, i absolutely understand why they'd be spending loads of time every day picking apart impeachment proceedings

to ordinary people it's a whole lot of noise & is very fatiguing: all the prognosticating about 'now we got trump / this is how we might get trump!' takes up a huge amount of space in the liberal mind and the corporate media plays a huge role in amplifying that feedback loop.

by all means report the news, by all means they should nail trump for whatever they can, but the sheer amount of daily prognostication about the doddering, oatmeal-brained trump's fate & the absolute fantasy of his procedural removal from office is masturbatory and ultimately does nothing to help fight the right.

IMO civic responsibility for those of us who want to fight the right means doing politics (politics that can win, politics that will rehabilitate the absolute dogsh_t brand of the blue party if the blue party is to be the vehicle of opposition) rather than consuming politics as entertainment packaged by cable TV megacorps / ivy league pundits etc.

fischbobber's picture

Nailing Trump?

This is a constitutional remedy to a constitutional issue. Reducing it to an infotainment review somehow seems rather whorish to me. I get that the average American has average intelligence. That doesn’t mean we should all roll over and pretend that justice shall evade our society. If we accept the intellectually lazy man’s view of what we are to become, then we deserve what we get.

And Vegas only has the odds of impeachment at 1 1/2 to one, contrary to what you and the rest of the Trump trolls are screaming. What do they know that you don’t know?

Alex_Falk's picture

just society? laughable

i think my point still stands about the media / pundit class circus around the impeachment taking up air, aiming to titillate liberal audiences for ad revenue while defending the status quo politics that got us to this place to begin with, the same politics that have failed and will fail to win against the forces of reaction and all the less-stupid trumps to come.

i would be happy to see trump impeached and removed from office, but if we lived in anything resembling a just society GWB would be in the hague instead of receiving trump-era kisses and plaudits from liberal oligarchs

fischbobber's picture

Merry Christmas to all.......

Dear Santa,

I would like a just verdict that shows America still works. I was pretty good, for me anyway, this year and sure could use some uplifting news.

Your friend,

Bob

Mike Daugherty's picture

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!

I hope Santa will bring all the Republican family and friends I love the good sense to agree with me in the New Year and know that finally all of us are right!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

Wire Reports

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Search and Archives