Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry
- Thread starter Big AAPL
- Start date
I think there has always, including in the present case, been a full house vote on the final articles before advancing them to the Senate. Your concern may have to do with a misunderstanding. The administration complained that the House committees decided to investigate Trumps actions before a full house vote. I don't have a problem with leaving the question whether to investigate up to the committees, if that is allowed by House rules, and it is.
The procedure used was more open than in the past. In at least one previous impeachment a special council did the preliminary fact finding via grand juries, entirely in secret. It was not open to House members at all. The process used in the current case was open to House Committee members, just not to the public until a later stage. In the present case the process used was open to both democrat and republican members of the house intelligence committee but closed to the public. The reasons given for closing the intelligence committee meetings to the public made sense to me. In any case, the relevant testimony was later made public before a full house vote on the articles and whether to advance them to the Senate.
I have no problem with any of this above. However, I thought the trial itself, if you can call it that, was ridiculous. What are we paying Roberts for if not to render judicial opinion and direct the trial so that it will be fair to both parties and uphold normal judicial standards.* Instead he sat there like a horny toad asleep on a rock. Why would the founders have decided the Chief Justice should preside if not to assure that judicial standards were observed.
You may know that in the early days of the Republic the President and Vice President did not run for office as a team. The candidate that came in second in a presidential election became the vice president. Hence the president and vice president were practically guaranteed to be political rivals. Although Jefferson wasn't elected until well after the Constitution was ratified, Jefferson's presidency comes immediately to mind as a case where the President and the Vice President did not get along very well. Jefferson lived just down the road from Adams, his vice president that he had defeated in the election, and they were at loggerheads on a lot of issues. The Founders probably wanted to avoid the possibility that an impeached President would have his trial adjudicated by his political rival, the President of the Senate, i.e., the Vice President. Hence i think that must have been partly the reason why they choose the Chief Justice to preside. But it also seems rather obvious that they choose a judge to preside because they wanted an impeachment trial that could pass judicial muster. We have to assume they didn't expect the Chief Justice to just sit there like a horny toad, otherwise the Sargeant at Arms or any other functionary employee could have presided just as well. We pay the Sargeant at Arms 172K per year and the Chief Justice 267K. The Sargeant could have presided every bit as well as did the Chief Justice. Maybe Chief Justice Roberts should have his salary reduced to that of the Sargeant of Arms.
Last edited:
Damn. That is like.....super stupid. Who votes for these 'politicians'?
Tards who live in shitholes. In other words, Californians, for the most part.
It is not a question, it is testifying
Susan Collins to vote to acquit.
Told y'all. You are welcome.
Tards, before you do your predictable dance, keep in mind that Susan voted to acquit Clinton too. And her vote to acquit may very well cost her the election in the fall. So be it. As with her vote to confirm Kavanaugh, she does not allow herself to be drawn into all the fake games and drama whether against Clinton, Kavanaugh or Trump. All her rino problems noted in advance.
As I said before, she may be rhino but it is because she is a moderate by nature and conviction not because she is butthurt and trying to settle old scores. Mitt Romney, I am looking at you.
Told y'all. You are welcome.
Tards, before you do your predictable dance, keep in mind that Susan voted to acquit Clinton too. And her vote to acquit may very well cost her the election in the fall. So be it. As with her vote to confirm Kavanaugh, she does not allow herself to be drawn into all the fake games and drama whether against Clinton, Kavanaugh or Trump. All her rino problems noted in advance.
As I said before, she may be rhino but it is because she is a moderate by nature and conviction not because she is butthurt and trying to settle old scores. Mitt Romney, I am looking at you.
Last edited: