Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by mchammer, Sep 24, 2019.
That's probably true. I only remember the House managers walking the articles over to the Senate.
The media didn't give it the same level of respect or seriousness, but they did walk the articles over in what looked similar to what happened there other day. It was the impeachment managers, so yes, they were all Republicans. It was Reps. Henry Hyde (chairman), Jim Sensenbrenner, Bill McCollum, George Gekas, Charles Canady, Steve Buyer, Ed Bryant, Steve Chabot, Bob Barr, Asa Hutchinson, Chris Cannon, James E. Rogan and Lindsey Graham.
I did not know that.
I do know the vote was bipartisan
I kinda have mixed thoughts on this. Honestly, I don't think his question was out of line. It's perfectly reasonable to ask that. However, because of who he is and who he works for, I can't say she was out of line for calling him a liberal hack and blowing him off. If you're a Republican I don't really see why you'd show CNN any respect at all.
This is the same reporter
Different media reaction though
If it weren't for double-standards, they'd have no standards at all.
I just don’t get how these bully tactics continue by the left.
When Lev Parnas made his media rounds this week, he was already under indictment and was out on bail
When he did the Rachel Madcow interview, he was wearing an ankle bracelet monitor -- did she tell he audience this?
Speaking of the Babylon Bee, Democrats can't beat them either. Which, of course, means they want to ban them
Because they run the government, not the elected politicians but Leftist career bureaucrats and DOJ and DOD agents.
It appears that he's afraid to end up like Epstein and he's trying to get it all out.
I did not know he had dirt on the Clintons. Link?
"I only remember the House managers walking the articles over to the Senate."
I can't find any link that shows the GOP walked the articles over.
Did you remember they walked it over on a Saturday with no ceremony? I can't find they made a media gloat over this but then it was not a partisan vote. It looks like they merely walked the articles over and gave to the Secretary with no media event.
If you have a link showing the Pubs made an event out of this I would like to see it
I don't have a link, but I saw them do it. The actual House impeachment managers walked the articles. I don't know that I'd call it particularly "ceremonial" and don't recall a lot of gloating. It was just a group of guys walking something across the Capitol and handing it over to the Senate. The media did cover it, but of course, they were hostile.
I have been waiting to see if a motion to dismiss was going to be allowed, and it appears so. I wrote about this possibility several times above and still think its the best course at this time, even though it is not what Trump seeks and might even hurt him in terms of the upcoming election.
In real life, in civil cases, the way a motion to dismiss works in federal court is to say "even if we assume everything the plaintiff says is true and correct, plaintiff has still not stated a cause of action." These motions are made pre-discovery, that it to say just on the pleadings themselves, considering nothing else. Motions made during or after discovery are most commonly motions for summary judgement (they will include some of the discovery, external to the pleadings - which would, in turn, then involve the application of a different legal standard of review).
There are a few different ways motions to dismiss work - sometimes you cannot make any sense of what the plaintiff wants. Sometimes, there is no legal remedy for what plaintiff seeks (Example, "I want the sun to come out" - I saw that once. And everyone agreed but there was no legal remedy). Probably most often is that there is no statutory, constitutional or other legal support for the cause. You cant ask a court to do something a court lacks the power or jurisdiction to do. This is why the rules allow you the chance to get this resolved before going through the time and cost of discovery.
When granted, motions to dismiss are usually granted "without prejudice." Which means the complaint can be filed again. The court is telling the plaintiff, go back, cure the defects with your complaint, then file again. A motion to dismiss granted "with prejudice" means the same plaintiff cannot file the same case again. While this happens less frequently, it does happen and the grounds are too varying to go into (such as a "vexatious litigant" - someone who has already filed the same nonsense 100 times before).
In this matter, a motion to dismiss is the first thing the Trump side should do. It would be saying "even if everything the House Democrats are saying is true, they still have not stated grounds for removal from office under the Constitution." The Senate would then take the time to explain to the House Democrats what the defects are with their Articles and tell them it is being dismissed "without prejudice," which gives them the opportunity to go back, cure their defects and then refile.
The reason this motion should be made and granted is bigger than Trump. This procedure is going to be setting precedence for all who comes after Trump. And unless we want to see a repeat every single year of what Schiff was doing in his top secret SCIF, then the Senate needs to tell them what was wrong with it.
To me, the largest defects were the ones that made what they did unconstitutional. Manly the denial of due process. The denial of basic American legal rights. Here, Trump could not call his own witnesses. He did not have his own attorneys present. The Committee leader was allowed to instruct witness not to answer questions from the other side. The House Republicans were not allowed to fully cross-examine witnesses. The only people from the opposing side who were allowed to participate where those approved by the Committee leader --others who had a right to participate and who sought to participate, were denied that opportunity. The Committee leader was also allowed to hide the testimony of witnesses from subsequent public witnesses, the full House and even their bosses (the people) -- this should never happen and alone is enough to make the whole thing defective. The president was never allowed to confront his accuser, was not allowed to depose him and indeed was never even allowed to know his identity (a direct violation of the 6th Amendment). All this is just off the top of my head, there are other grounds.
And so it is important to set some rules for this. Make it public. Say it on live TV, under oath, and then put it in writing, in simple terms for everyone to see. So, yes, the Senate should say these Articles are too legally defective for it to consider at this time and here is why. They should take the time to explain that the procedure of the House Desm was defective, that what they did was not legally sufficient under the American system of justice. They should also say they are dismissing the Articles "without prejudice" and will reconsider the case if the House goes back and cures it. And then actually tell them, "here is what you need to do to fix it." IMO, it's very important that the Senate make clear the process itself must be fair to everyone. Even Trump, and for all presidents after him.
Procedurally in the Senate, the way I would go would be that once the Senate is called to order, the House Dems state their case, but then before anything else goes forward, before the House Rs or the President responds, before any witnesses, the motion to dismiss is made.
I think Hornfans has a few vexatious litigants onboard.
If I didn't hear it I would not have believed a Senator would say something like this which is so antithetical to our Constitution.
Steny Hoyer on the floor of the Senate actually said 'we allowed him every opportunity to come prove his innocence,'.
I made it through 26 seconds of that hack.
Yea I probably should have marked where he said it.
Yeah I can't sift through his drivel to find it, and since you say he said it, I believe you.
If you haven't proven someone's guilt, then you have to rely on arguments that assume the accused has the burden of proof.
While Pelosi is running around gloating about Trump being "impeached forever", I am not sure she has considered her legacy if Trump gets re-elected. Trump would become the first President to be impeached and then reelected. That would be a pretty clear repudiation of her current term as Speaker. There is also a good chance that she will have lost the House for the 2nd time as Speaker. You could be sure that Trump would remind everyone of this for his entire 2nd term.
Could end up a pretty embarrassing situation for her but then again logic has not been her strong suit recently.
T-shirts now available
Liberal Hack T-Shirt
I always find it funny when both sides do a complete 180º on something and then one side calls the other out for changing their standards in an equal and opposite way as they themselves did.
Rudy is begging to be allowed to testify
This is about the Dems but it also seems like NBC is just figuring it out too
How is that even possible?
Hunter Biden was getting money from all over the place while his dad was in office, more than just Ukraine and China
A Morgan Stanley investment account from which Hunter regularly received funds shows money arriving from mysterious sources around the world. There is a $142,300 deposit in April 2014 from Kazakh oligarch–controlled Novatus Holdings. Kenges Rakishev, whose father-in-law is the former vice prime minister of Kazakhstan and a close ally of Kazakh dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev, runs the offshore firm.
* * *
With the election of his father as vice president, Hunter Biden launched businesses fused to his father’s power that led him to lucrative deals with a rogue’s gallery of governments and oligarchs around the world. Sometimes he would hitch a prominent ride with his father aboard Air Force Two to visit a country where he was courting business. Other times, the deals would be done more discreetly. Always they involved foreign entities that appeared to be seeking something from his father. Often, the countries in question, including Ukraine, Russia, and Kazakhstan, had highly corrupt political cultures.
In short, Hunter Biden was not cutting business deals in Japan or Great Britain, where disclosure rules and corporate governance might require greater scrutiny. These were deals in the truly dark corners of the world.