WATCH LIVE | Impeachment trial of President Trump continues in Senate (Day 5))

Sounds like a good reason to hear more witnesses.

 

No...others (cabinet level positions), to whom Sondland referred in his statement about "everybody knew," will end up testifying and probably corroborate Sondland's testimony. Why do you think the WH doesn't want any more witnesses or documentation? For process reasons? Hahahaha.

 

Popular vote is immaterial, he will certainly win where it counts-with the EC.

 

What post number? What were the exact words?

 

Those process reasons are violations of the process by the House. If the House has a problem, it can correct those problems in the House Chambers. Of course, that'd mean this farce would come to an end. But as the President's lawyer pointed out, they'd been cooperative from the beginning.

 

I doubt it. How many times do you think the electorate is going to be satisfied with minority presidents, before they demand some sort of presidential election based on a popular vote victory?

 

Good luck with such an amendment. Which states do you think will ratify an amendment that reduces their political influence?

 

Hahahaha...read the letter of October 8th.

 

Of course they are. Under the trumpers' false and newly-minted "evidentiary standard", we could never convict a mafioso.

 

Yeah, that letter is hilarious. I love how it talks about snow elves. Cracked me up.

 

The electorate has options-I started a thread last week about the interstate vote compact-however that is likely unconstitutional and will be litigated by SCOTUS this summer.

The other option is a constitutional amendment- which requires a supermajority vote.

Dems continue to lose and so they will continue to "demand" things that will change that.

Not gonna happen.

 

Except that there was ample evidence to support it. The problem with the GOP arguments here are that their legal arguments aren't remotely within haling distance of the law, they fail to address the factual background, and they wholly fail to address the thorny issues of the "presuhdint" withholding evidence and witnesses--i.e the obstruction of Congress.

This isn't some ****ing board game like "Candy Land".

Do you want Bernie Sanders--another populist type demagogue---to do the same ****? I sure as Hell don't---but you're inviting it to happen.

 

This post won't age well.

 

At least three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States) need to "demand". That's after it goes though Congress. Nope, not going happen. Just a pipe dream.

 

I view it not as a small state/large state thing...but has an urban v. rural issue, along with an expanding electorate. The trend toward urbanization continues. The expansion of the electorate continues. Both trends will eventually lead to a demand for a presidential election by popular vote majority. It was considered at the time of the writing of the Constitution and while Madison realized that it was the ideal and preferable method, he also knew that it would significantly reduce the possibility of Presidents elected from the South. In fact, had it not been for the three-fifths compromise and the electoral college, it is unlikely Jefferson, Madison and Monroe would have been elected. Impeachment and the process of electing a president were two of the several issues that went unresolved until the closing days of the Convention. [For more - see Madison's "Notes."]

 

So can you give us a list of the 38 states that you think will choose to modify the treaty to their detriment?

 

Congress cannot be obstructed through the legal court proceedings. So do I want a President to protect the executive privilege? Yes, I do infact. Schumer/Pelosi can cry all they want, but the President's party has the numbers. And that's really what it all comes down to now.

 

When they finally get him on criminal statutes, they'll rely on the RICO laws.

 

I'm finally starting to hear some of the talking heads and guest D Senators talking about the consequences of the Senate essentially dismantling their own subpoena power in the future..

The Executive Branch need never answer another House or Senate subpoena ever again... thus destroying the concept of 3 co-equal branches..

Here are some professional thoughts along those lines

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/opinion/impeachment-article-2-trump.html

 

The state eating its own? Excellent, let me go get some popcorn...

 

I must have missed that part...but I do remember a lot of similar BS.

 

We'll see. I thought Bush was right on Florida law, but that the Supreme Court intervention compounded the error by over-ruling the Florida Supreme Court. I remember the days when States made their own election rules, as long as they stayed within the bounds of federal law.

 

Political battles have long been a favorite American pastime...that and sports. Once they even led to a Civil War. Speaking of which...I am reading a new book on the Johnson impeachment and trial, "The Impeachers: The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Dream of a Just Nation," by Brenda Wineapple, Random House, New York, 2019. Quoting from page 247: "Andrew Johnson was not a statesman. He was [a] man with a fear of losing ground, with a need to be recognized, with an obsession to be right, and when seeking revenge on enemies - or perceived enemies - he had to humiliate, harass, and hound them. Heedless of consequences, he baited Congress and bullied men, believing his enemies were enemies of the people. It was a convenient illusion."
History never repeats...but often rhymes...to borrow a phrase.

 

This is making alarm bells sound off in my head, and I'm no alarmist and hate unwarranted hyperbole.

 

I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS isn't ruling on the vote compact, since it's not a thing yet.

To me, it seems that if individual electors can violate their pledges, then they can be replaced by those that appointed them.

Status Quo...