🇳🇱
"This is a land -- uncharted waters, constitutionally," Graham told reporters. "I just know this, that this matters to the future of the country. We cannot have a system where the House impeaches the president, tells the Senate how to conduct the trial, holds the articles of impeachment over the president's head at a time of their choosing to unleash them." -- Lindsey Graham
Any respect the democrats had during this impeachment trial went out the fucking window the second they decided to withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate.
It is exactly this sort of manipulation of the system that got Trump elected int eh first place, people wanting him to "clear the swamp" and while I dont think Trump is delivering on that promise, the promise alone got him elected.
Man the democrats dont know WTF they are doing anymore, no wonder Trump got elected.
@freemo Didn't the Senate Majority Leader say that he will not be impartial? It seems kind of reasonable not to let someone who claims this explicitly pass judgement. Although using legal tricks to do that is disappointing, I don't see how else they could have avoided that.
Eh, no idea, I'm very disappointed by more and more politicians all over the world ignoring the spirit and even sometimes rule of law. I feel like one "side" (broadly speaking, since I'm talking abut many parts of the world) is doing this much more, but there are obvious reasons why I might be biased.
@freemo @timorl
I do think they're playing the role of swamp dwellers well. This is exactly the confirmation Trump would wish for after calling them the swamp. To hold purely partisan vote after saying a partisan vote would not be okay. To rush it through in time for a 2020 candidate debate, then put it on hold indefinitely.
Even the fact that they didn't list any crime in the impeachment, makes it look like they're simply using all of their power to overturn one election and help their candidates in the next election.
There is no legal requirement that an impeachment be linked to any sort of a crime. They are ok as far as that aspect goes.
No law that says he has to be impartial your right. But as I said that is largely irrelevant. The senate majority leader doesnt oversee the senate hearing anyway.
@SecondJon
I don't expect impartiality, only an attempt at it. I was under the impression these were the standards, so people at least pretended to follow them. Explicitly saying you won't even try is... well, terrible from my point of view.
@freemo
Well depends. The impeachment was on the grounds that when trump asked ukraine for any legitimate evidence that biden committed crimes or that ukraine was involved in manipulating the 2016 election, that he was abusing his power as president.
The hearing largely deals with if that happened or not.
The stance of the republicans is basically something along the lines of: Trump didnt ask for evidence to be fabricated, he only asked for legitimate evidence, if there is any.
So even if trump is found completely guilty of what he was accused of the republicans would still not find that impeachable offence. So what is there to be impartial about. None of what is in question is really the issue, the very accusation and charges are non-issues to them.
I'm not saying ia gree with them, but the issue is less to do with their impartiality, or lack there of, and more to do with the fact that even if found guilty they dont see what trump did as an offense.
@timorl
It may be terrible, but it's what we've seen in the house of representatives. My understanding is that the republican senate is repulsed by this same thing in the Democrat house. Pelosi recently said they've been working to impeach the president for years, so this is neither about Ukraine nor impartiality.
@freemo
@freemo
That guy seems much more reasonable, and yeah, this makes the D's move much less excusable. Thanks!
@timorl The senate majority leader, however, isnt the one who would be in control of a Senate hearing. It is presided over by the Chief Justice not the Senate Majority leader.