DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Impeachment: Live Free or Die Hard

Your delusions never cease to amaze me.

Too bad we can’t quarantine them.

And give them all the chemical castration Red Maga gelCaps they can take.

So you deny the record low unemployment rates?

You deny the growth of business and the return of manufacturing?

You deny that 7 or 8 million Americans have risen off of Food Stamps?

Who is really delusional here?

Claiming the return of manufacturing is like claiming the Browns have returned to perennial playoff contender after our Win vs the Bills.

Claiming that folks rose out of food stamps is a play on words that implies something that isn't true. Those people are off food stamps because the rules changed not because their lives are better. SMH.

Delusional.

In Trump's First 30 Months, Manufacturing Up By 314,000 Jobs Over Obama

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore...t/#5313596b2677

The Mueller investigation was started by Republicans, not Democrats. It was Rosenstein, a Trump appointee who started the investigation in which he appointed Mueller, another Republican as special council.



You mean "evidence" which there was. Or do you mean the witnesses lying which Mueller plainly stated they did? It's hard to uncover the truth when the witnesses keep lying.



Yes.



More lies and conspiracy theories. Since that's all you really have left.



U.S. manufacturing dives to 10-year low as trade tensions weigh

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e...h-idUSKBN1WG47G

There’s a Surprisingly Plausible Path to Removing Trump From Office

It would take just three Republican senators to turn the impeachment vote into a secret ballot. It’s not hard to imagine what would happen then.

By most everyone’s judgment, the Senate will not vote to remove President Donald Trump from office if the House impeaches him. But what if senators could vote on impeachment by secret ballot? If they didn’t have to face backlash from constituents or the media or the president himself, who knows how many Republican senators would vote to remove?

A secret impeachment ballot might sound crazy, but it’s actually quite possible. In fact, it would take only three senators to allow for that possibility.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he will immediately move to hold a trial to adjudicate the articles of impeachment if and when the Senate receives them from the House of Representatives. Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution does not set many parameters for the trial, except to say that “the Chief Justice shall preside,” and “no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” That means the Senate has sole authority to draft its own rules for the impeachment trial, without judicial or executive branch oversight.

During the last impeachment of a president, Bill Clinton, the rules were hammered out by Democrats and Republicans in a collaborative process, as then Senate leaders Trent Lott and Tom Daschle recently pointed out in a Washington Post op-ed. The rules passed unanimously. That’s unlikely this time, given the polarization that now defines our politics. McConnell and his fellow Republicans are much more likely to dictate the rules with little input from Democrats.

But, according to current Senate procedure, McConnell will still need a simple majority—51 of the 53 Senate Republicans—to support any resolution outlining rules governing the trial. That means that if only three Republican senators were to break from the caucus, they could block any rule they didn’t like. (Vice President Mike Pence can’t break ties in impeachment matters.) Those three senators, in turn, could demand a secret ballot and condition their approval of the rest of the rules on getting one.

Some might say transparency in congressional deliberations and votes is inviolable, and it’s true that none of the previous Senate impeachments have been conducted via secret ballot. But the Senate’s role in an impeachment is analogous to a U.S. jury, where secret ballots are often used. When Electoral College gridlock has resulted in the House picking the president—the House elected Thomas Jefferson in 1800 and John Quincy Adams in 1824—that vote has been secret. And, of course, when citizens vote for president, they do so in private.

Trump and those around him seem confident that he won’t lose the 20 Republican senators needed to block a guilty verdict. But it’s not hard to imagine three senators supporting a secret ballot. Five sitting Republican senators have already announced their retirements; four of those are in their mid-70s or older and will never run for office again. They might well be willing to demand secrecy in order to give cover to their colleagues who would like to convict Trump but are afraid to do so because of politics in their home districts. There are also 10 Republican senators who aren’t up for reelection until 2024 and who might figure Trumpism will be irrelevant by then. Senators Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski have been the most vocal Republicans in expressing concerns about Trump’s behavior toward Ukraine. Other GOP senators have recently softened in their defense of him, as well—all before the House has held any public hearings.

There’s already been some public speculation that, should the Senate choose to proceed with a secret ballot, Trump would be found guilty. GOP strategist Mike Murphy said recently that a sitting Republican senator had told him 30 of his colleagues would vote to convict Trump if the ballot were secret. Former Senator Jeff Flake topped that, saying he thought 35 Republican senators would vote that way.

While it’s unlikely Trump would support a secret ballot, it’s possible he might actually benefit from one in the long run. If a secret ballot is agreed on and Trump knows the prospect of impeachment is near, he could then focus his energies on his post-presidency. Once he leaves office, Trump faces multiple possible criminal investigations, at the federal, state and local level. He almost certainly knows that a President Pence could pardon him only for federal crimes. To avoid the prospect of serving time, Trump could negotiate a collective settlement—just as the Sackler family has done in the OxyContin matter—with all the jurisdictions now running independent investigations into his activities. Trump’s impeachment, followed by a quick resignation, might appease Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance’s and New York Attorney General Letitia James’s thirst for justice, making them more likely to agree to a deal.

Even McConnell might privately welcome the prospect of a secret ballot. He has always been intently focused on maintaining his Republican majority in the Senate. Trump’s approval numbers continue to languish, and support for impeachment has been rising. McConnell himself, facing reelection next year, has an approval rating of just 18 percent in Kentucky, not to mention that the Republican governor there just suffered a stunning upset in last week’s election. All of which suggests McConnell might warm to the possibility that he and his caucus could avoid a public up-or-down vote in defense of behavior by the president that’s looking increasingly indefensible.

A secret ballot might get Trump out of office sooner than everyone expects: The sooner any three Republican senators make clear that they will support nothing short of a secret ballot, the sooner Trump realizes his best course could be to cut a deal, trading his office for a get-out-of-jail-free card—a clean slate from prosecutors—just as Vice President Spiro Agnew did. And if Trump were to leave office before the end of the year, there might even be enough time for Republicans to have a vibrant primary fight, resulting in a principled Republican as the nominee.

UPDATE: Some constitutional scholars have pointed out that Article 1, Section 5, of the Constitution designates that 20 senators can oppose a secret ballot on “any questions,” but “questions” are defined as “Any matter on which the Senate is to vote, such as passage of a bill, adoption of an amendment, agreement to a motion, or an appeal.” No mention of impeachment proceedings is made. And, as others have pointed out, preceding this one-fifth requirement is crucial language: “Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy.” Precedents are so thin here, but it is clear the Senate has the power to make its own rules over the trial proceedings. Those rules have historically required a simple majority of support.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/12/path-to-removing-donald-trump-from-office-229911

Impeaching Trump via a “secret ballot” may be the Democrats’ next plan

Jazz Shaw

November 12, 2019

Most of us have been operating on one assumption since the entire impeachment hearing circus rolled into town. Sooner or later the Democrats in the House are going to impeach Donald Trump. (They’ve been itching to do it since the inauguration.) And following that, Cocaine Mitch and the Senate Republican Majority will schedule a trial and refuse to remove Trump from office. In fact, it’s not even clear that they’ll be able to convince all the Democrats to vote for removal.



But what if there was a way around the potential backlash Senators from swing states (and some Republicans) would face if they voted in favor of removal? That’s the subject of a think piece at Politico today from Juleanna Glover, a Republican strategist who has worked for Bush 43, Dick Cheney and John McCain, among others. And how does she propose that the Senators manage this seemingly impossible feat? By setting up the rules of impeachment in the upper chamber so that the vote would take place via a secret ballot.


By most everyone’s judgment, the Senate will not vote to remove President Donald Trump from office if the House impeaches him. But what if senators could vote on impeachment by secret ballot? If they didn’t have to face backlash from constituents or the media or the president himself, who knows how many Republican senators would vote to remove?

A secret impeachment ballot might sound crazy, but it’s actually quite possible. In fact, it would take only three senators to allow for that possibility…

But, according to current Senate procedure, McConnell will still need a simple majority—51 of the 53 Senate Republicans—to support any resolution outlining rules governing the trial. That means that if only three Republican senators were to break from the caucus, they could block any rule they didn’t like.

Glover concedes that her plan “might sound crazy,” and for good reason. Because it is. Any attempt to push through a rule change allowing the details of the vote to be hidden from the public likely would (and should) result in an uproar from the public. This isn’t just a question of transparency. It’s a matter of accountability to the voters on what is likely the most momentous decision the senators will make while in office.

On top of that, Glover’s underlying assumption of this being not only a plausible but legal strategy are far from assured. It’s true that Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that “each house may determine the rules of its proceedings.” But she ignores the directions given in the very next paragraph. For those who may have skipped class on the day they covered this, here’s how that paragraph reads. (Emphasis added)

“Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.”

So the Senate may be able to set its own rules for any proceeding, including impeachment. But at the same time, removing the President from office still requires a vote. How can you have a rule barring the yeas and nays from being publicly reported when any twenty senators could legally call for the vote to be recorded and published?

Glover is hardly the first person to pitch such an idea. The Harvard Crimson published an editorial back in the 90s (when a different president was being impeached) calling for the same secret ballot theory. The idea went nowhere.

It’s true that the Senate can vote to handle the matter via a closed session, and that’s been done more than fifty times in the past century. But the session generally only involves the actual deliberation of sensitive matters, not the final vote. (That’s how it was handled with Bill Clinton’s trial.) And even then, the Senate is expected to offer some rationale for justifying the secrecy.

If they are discussing matters of national security, military intelligence or other such topics, a certain amount of secrecy can readily be justified. But in this case, they would be asking the public to simply accept that the results of a vote should be kept from them simply because a lot of them are too cowardly to stand by their own vote. Isn’t democracy awesome?

While this might pass constitutional muster under a twisted interpretation of the rules, it’s a horrible idea. And that means it’s probably one that the Democrats are already working on.

You forgot your link...


https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/20...rats-next-plan/

Hotair, says it all.

Bolton suggests Trump's Turkey policy motivated by personal, financial interest: NBC

Former national security adviser John Bolton reportedly criticized President Trump's foreign policy last week, accusing Trump of being motivated primarily by personal or financial interests in his dealings with Turkey.

NBC News reported Tuesday that Bolton made the comment at a private gathering last week in a global investment event organized by Morgan Stanley, at which he also reportedly took shots at Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, who remain White House aides.

NBC, citing people who heard the remarks, reported that Bolton said he believed Trump to be motivated by some personal or business relationship in Turkey, while questioning whether Trump should apply his business acumen to foreign policy.

His remarks come as Trump has faced heavy criticism for ordering a U.S. withdrawal from northern Syria, where Turkish forces have invaded Kurdish-held areas.

During Bolton's speech, the former national security adviser added that he kept a resignation letter ready in his desk for months before finally exiting the White House. He declined to comment to NBC News on that claim or others about his reported remarks.

House Democrats have attempted to obtain testimony from Bolton for the ongoing impeachment inquiry against the president, though those efforts have not yet been successful.

Bolton left the Trump White House earlier in 2019.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-secu...sonal-financial

Secret ballot is a bad idea. Just a terrible way to end this mess.

One of the best things about all this is it's fake, rigged, and just the Democrats playing politics about this. They must do these kind of things because they know they STILL don't have anything to offer the American people in 2020. No ideas and no candidates. You think they'd learn but they never do.

There's no chance in hell a democrat candidate wins in 2020.

I can see you think you are right. LMAO@U

Giuliani associate Lev Parnas discussed Ukraine with Trump at private dinner: report

https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...ump-at-private#

Republicans better pray this isn’t true. Once again, people associated with trump are gonna do prison time.

Here’s my favorite part:

Giuliani has declined to comment on his relationship with the men amid an ongoing investigation but told the Post that Trump already knew them by the time Giuliani met them.

_________

Lol. Every man for himself.

Schiff should get this guy in for a hearing.

Yeah no big beautiful wall paid for by Mexico.

Or amazing, affordable healthcare in the first 100 days...

Just want to remind the board that all the testimony given is from people who worked for trump, and who STILL work in the WH.

“Deep state” = US constitution.

He hires the best. Only the best. Really great people. Wonderful people.

Jeez. So we’re rolling out this defense again?

Well, trump tried but since he failed you can’t really punish him.

Lolol

Haley selling out on her values and honor.

Does that mean if you try to rob a bank, but don't get any money, you didn't commit a crime?

Asking for a friend.

Certainly seems like it. You and I about to plan a trip to Wells Fargo right quick

Well they are the one's that keep ripping of their customers. Can we call it a move for social justice?

Nah remember bro, republicans only support corruption if it’s done for personal reasons, not for SJW reasons.

We gotta walk that line lolololol

DAYUMMMMM! Bill Taylor just dropped a bombshell; Sondland called Trump in July from Kiev luncheon to report on meetings and staff heard Trump asking about Biden investigations, Sondland replied that Ukrainians were ready to move forward.

George Conway on MSNBC for the hearings... he reviles Trump. You can sure tell he can't stand that republicans refuse to stand up for their traditional values.

Nunes just said in his opening statement that it was fine for trump to send his personal lawyer Rudy to Ukraine to investigate.

Lolololol

Nunes is already getting countered by Taylor. Good lord

Adam Schiff needs to shut up

Let's argue facts with wanting to know if Hunter Biden speaks Ukranian. lol

Bro, the republicans couldn’t pick a better counsel for questioning?

He tried Biden with Kent and got owned, and already getting checked by Taylor.

40 could ask better questions.

Jim Himes just wrecked the trump anti corruption argument. Damn son.

This crap needs to get off my TV. How am I supposed to watch my soaps?
This is gonna go on for weeks.

Who cares about the president of Ukraine Ratcliff??? lol

I felt he made some good points before that stupid outburst

And there it is lmfao

When all else fails....blame Obama.

Common decency, decorum and simply acting like a civil adult went out the window the day Trump became the President.. There is nothing about him that is right.

Except the things that are alt-right.