The house can likely impeach him anytime, but they are locked up by the senate and the more evidence they get the better case can be made in the senate, especially if they get some republicans to show some guts and vote to impeach as well, but one thing this is all about is also allowing the public to hear and see the evidence as well. If the senate won't do anything, the voters can and the more informed they are the better chance he won't get reelected. Why go into it with just enough evidence if there is a possibility of finding overwhelming evidence. It won't do much to the likes of guys like marzy, maris and abm, as they are part of trumps 30 or so percent and are blind to trumps indiscretion. It's the undecideds that will make a difference in this upcoming election.
this is one thing that Trump has been great at. He has somehow convinced people that his own words and actions - facts- and the words and action of his administration- facts- are not facts. He just says so. And they follow his lead. It’s embarrassing. Or it should be but isn’t because you all don’t get it.
I agree with you - there is a strategy. In the big scheme of things, I don't think it is important though. barfo
If you know the jury is hostile to your case, you try to make the case as airtight as possible. barfo
Say, what? It's written in our Constitution. Doesn't that mean anything anymore? Or, are you just pulling our leg?
While the entire impeachment process, House and Senate, is not entirely analogous to a court procedure, it is similar and the impeachment process is similar to a Grand Jury investigation and resulting indictment. The Senates contribution is somewhat similar to the actual trial with either a guilty verdict, which requires a two thirds super majority, or innocent, which only takes 1/3 plus one.
I would think it would benefit those running for congress in districts that trump won if they voted after the election? I do believe that is a consideration, you dont?
I think the vote is going to come long before the election, but I agree that the members most in danger (on both sides) would prefer not to have a vote before the election. barfo
Another court confirms this points: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/politics/trump-mazars-appeal-decision/index.html
This thread was buried on page 4 of OT. Why? In light of Trump's follies and foibles, I would expect to see a number of democratic candidates front-and-center taking aim at him and wresting position within their own ranks. The biggest democratic news now includes Hillary? Please.
You left out a very possible alternative to a Senate trial. There would be no need for the Chief Justice to preside if the Senate dismisses the house charge of impeachment.
And that would run totally counter to the original intent that Congressional representative be held accountable for their vote on impeachment at the ballot box. I suspect enough Americans will learn that this tactic intended to thwart an honest election for President, would be wrong as hell.
Honest election? Did you miss the senate report on it was proven that Russia interfered in the election? Sure, it can't be proven how many votes were swayed by Russian propaganda but to call it an honest election is a joke.
I don't think you read my post very carefully. There WILL be a vote on impeachment long before the election, I was saying. barfo
This whole Dem SECRET COURT is a leap too far for most of my anti-Trump friends. Pretty much every one of them is going to vote for whoever runs 3rd party. DNC is springing someone else at the last minute, Hillary or Michelle or Oprah...they have to know the current crop have no prayer.
Which is guaranteed. I expect Mitch will call for a vote to dismiss without debate. If it passes the Home, which seems doubtful.