That Impeachment Thing....

The only correct thing in this whole post is the witness testimony must be relevant. Therefore, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Nellie Ohr, Adam Schiff won't be called, because they don't have any relevant testimony. Other than that, yes, there will be votes on witnesses. Mitch McConnell will not have the sole power to call whomever he wants. That is a ridiculous, baseless, and most importantly, source-less assertion.

fonewear! its been approximately FOREVER since we saw you on Shiva! YOU SUCK!

I can log on Shiva sometime. It's been a bit yet.

I'm actually surprised that this whole Lev Parnas thing isn't getting more coverage. Not that I think there's anything to it, but simply because I thought that the media would be trying harder to make something of it. It's hardly a blip on CNN's front page now. WaPo seems to care a little more, but MSNBC seems like the only major mainstream outlet that's making a huge deal out of it still. Some of the more centrist outlets like Reuters, RCP, and the AP barely have anything about it on their politics pages.

I want to believe that they have finally realized that the nonstop "Drump is Done" news reports never actually go anywhere, but I'm too cynical for that. For now, this is yet another too good to be true angle for the Democrats to salivate over as Trump marches steadily towards acquittal.

Oh, here's a few blips to the Parnas thing:

ABC News

Politico

NYT

Independent

Business Insider

I think you completely missed my point.

In my home there are two perjurers on the supreme court. Both are republicans.

Admittedly Joe Biden REALLY helped install the first one.

This is all we need to know to realize how bad Chanti's TDS is.

I'm not interested in your point. I was merely posting some links in case you missed what the Parnas thing was about. I was just trying to be helpful but like they say, no good deed goes unpunished.

Just to be clear, in your state/locality thing? Or on SCOTUS?

It's one of those "Not my President" things. Libs still can't accept he won the election.

Maybe but it just seems worded odd. Giving benefit of doubt maybe it's in her state Supreme Court or Circuit Court and Biden may have recommended to then President Obama to nominate them there or something?

I don't disagree they can't accept he won the election. I mean wow, super important super serious Impeachment! Why wait 1 month to send over the charges? Why use so many pens on something somber and serious while smiling like the cat that ate the canary? Almost like....the words and actions don't line up...

/ponders

They might try, but they would have to pass a constitutional amendment to do it. There is no way they could get 2/3 of the Senate to go along with it in the current political environment, so it’s a pipe dream.

I think that is the exact reason the Senate holds the trial. So whims of load vocal masses don't easily sway things. I mean look what happens when you give into the will of the masses, Robespierre found out.

Lets expand the our horizons by thinking outside of box of our modern day horse race partisan politics paradigm shall we.

Bullet points are fun right?

• Chanti is old, lives in Washington State.

• Joe Biden is old, represented Delaware.

• There are Supreme Court Justice Nominees that have had to go through Confirmation hearings headed by Sen. Joe Biden

Heres two names you may or may not recognize:

Robert Bork - Not Confirmed.
Clarence Thomas - Confirmed

Hopefully this helps bring just a little clarity. But if it doesn't its OK she is no way inferring that Biden is reponsible for Kavanaugh by way of Anthony Kennedy by the denial of Robert Bork... or is she?

Think its something like 2/3 or 3/4 of the States to agree to it. That's even harder then a regular supermajority law.

They gave it a good shot fifty years ago when Nixon was President. It passed the House by a huge margin but fell apart in the Senate. I’m glad it ended up that way, but the voting was interesting. I guess the congressmen of each party didn’t walk in lockstep like they do nowadays. I imagine that the Founders didn’t intend for minority/majority leaders to rule with an iron fist and threaten/bribe their own people into submission, but here we are....

During that era politics were far more local. People elected who they felt would represent them the most. Now the centralized parties are so controlled by billionaire money that they choose who wins the primaries based on loyalty. It's a simple choice of serve the party or get replaced by someone who will.

Constitutional Amendment Process
It is difficult.

Aside: they are on SCOTUS.

Gerrymandered districts have a LOT to do with that as well.

Which is another thing that should be very VERY illegal. Both sides mess with congressional redistricting in order to maximize how many districts they win.

But it has the effect of making the elected subservient to the party rather than their district.

I suppose the parties see that as a good thing...

With the thread on hiatus for two days, I was hoping that a new post meant that something interesting had happened. Such a letdown.

Rav, On weekends people aren't at work and taking a break ****posting here. Also less news out of DC. So why should a new post be significant?

Kiteek, this is not a criminal trial. Not that our president hasn't committed crimes, its just that he is not on trial for them. That will come after he is out of office I hope.

Souvenir Pens From Clinton’s Impeachment Had To Be Reprinted After Spelling Error