Graham mulls rule changes to start impeachment trial without articles

  
Via:  Vic Eldred  •  9 months ago  •  30 comments

By:    JUSTINE COLEMAN

Graham mulls rule changes to start impeachment trial without articles
“If we don’t get the articles this week, then we need to take matters in our own hands and change the rules, deem them to be delivered to the Senate, so we can start the trial, invite the House over to participate if they would like. If they don’t come, dismiss the case and get on with governing the country,” Graham said.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Sen.  Lindsey Graham  (R-S.C.) said on Sunday that he is mulling rule changes in an effort to quickly start the Senate impeachment trial of  President Trump  without the articles that Speaker  Nancy Pelosi  (D-Calif.) is withholding from the upper chamber

Graham told Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that he would work with Senate Majority Leader  Mitch McConnell  (R-Ky.) to change the chamber's rules if the articles are not sent this week. 

“What I would do if she continues to refuse to send the articles as required by the Constitution, I would work with Sen. McConnell to change the rules of the Senate to start the trial without her if necessary,” he said.

The South Carolina senator accused Pelosi of a "political stunt" meant to “extort...a trial to her liking.” 

“If we don’t get the articles this week, then we need to take matters in our own hands and change the rules, deem them to be delivered to the Senate, so we can start the trial, invite the House over to participate if they would like. If they don’t come, dismiss the case and get on with governing the country,” Graham said.

Graham added that he hopes the Senate trial will be over by the end of January, and if the American people want a different president, they can decide that in November.

The House impeached the president on two articles including abuse of power and obstruction of Congress last month, but Pelosi has not sent the articles to the Senate.

The Speaker has withheld the articles, requesting McConnell and the Senate Minority Leader  Chuck Schumer  (D-N.Y.) establish the rules of the trial beforehand. 


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Vic Eldred
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    9 months ago

The Senate can change it's rules too. You got 1 week Nancy!

 
 
 
CB
2  CB     9 months ago

Well now: What won't republican's attempt using Trump as air cover? It all very interesting to watch this nation be governed by "factions" of its citizens at a time. Here is a thought: Since you have Trump as president and republicans willing to do his "business" and vice-versa - why not just partition this country (already) - and get it over with?

Democrats and the rest of the citizenry not supporting takeover of our systems would be a bunch of fools to just cave-in to all Trump and republican lies and deceptions. BTW, it is clear, Graham does not give a damn about the truth. For my part, I will likely not associate him with truth-telling again!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @2    9 months ago
why not just partition this country (already) - and get it over with?

Why not try what you tried last time, when Lincoln became President - Secede!

 
 
 
CB
2.1.1  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    9 months ago

Moi, has to date never ever supported secession! But, you republicans with your political influences are vested enough in tearing down the country and taking away the voice of "the many" - go on and stop 'faking the funk'—split from the rest of us! Apparently politically, one side or the other would not know a scorching red hot set of lies if they laid tracks on its front and back!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @2.1.1    9 months ago
a scorching red hot set of lies

Speaking of which is the Russia collusion hoax

Where is the shame?

 
 
 
CB
2.1.3  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    9 months ago

Speaking of this "hoax" where is contextual proof from the Mueller Report that definitively, and I mean explicitly states in meaning and not pulling words out for abuse, that no collusion with Russia occurred. Please provide, page number or numbers plural. "Chapter and verse."

It will be the tinniest of diversions: "You betcha!"

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.3    9 months ago

Gee, a more reasonable person might ask where is the proof in the Great Mueller Report of collusion or conspiracy with the Russians and the Trump campaign--you know--the things he was charged with investigating.

Now, THAT would make more sense than Mueller detailing stuff he didn;t find.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.5  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    9 months ago

I take that as a "we don't have a clear contextual proof" that President Trump was explicitly and in plain language cleared of Russian collusion—but we will jump to such a conclusion anyway.

Is that it, Texan1211?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.5    9 months ago

personally, I don't care how YOU take it.

Just makes more sense to me if Mueller was charged with looking into possible collusion between Trump and Russia, had he FOUND any, he would have SAID so. Kind of the WHOLE point of the Great Mueller Report, no?

It wasn't Mueller's charge to clear anyone of anything.

You accuse me of jumping to conclusions--but I base my thought on what was IN the Mueller Report--not what it DOESN'T say. You are asking about possibilities--not facts. You are jumping to conclusions far more than I.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @2.1.3    9 months ago

Mueller was never ever able to prove any collusion. You want the innocent to prove nothing happened?

The media and the left told us for 2 years that there was - that was a LIE

The FBI got nailed for trying to create collusion - they got CAUGHT

 
 
 
Jasper2529
2.1.9  Jasper2529  replied to  CB @2.1.3    9 months ago
the Mueller Report

Robert Mueller's name shouldn't even be on that report. Mueller testified under oath that he'd never heard of Fusion GPS ... imagine that!

 
 
 
CB
2.1.10  CB   replied to    9 months ago

And you are falsely accusing me of introducing Russia (collusion hoax) into this discussion why? It should not be this hard to stand for what is wholesome, real, and truthful—WallyW! Go back up the thread and read down once more—in all your getting-get context!

 
 
 
CB
2.1.11  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    9 months ago

Well let's just "personally" come clean. If you don't care - neither do I. That's all on that!

Actually, I know what the Mueller Report says. But, I don't care if you know it or not. All in all, I was not attempting to persuade, announce, or even 'tap dance' you into this. You placed your own marker into it.

Therefore, handle the context of the Mueller Report; deny that context matters at all; or step out of this discussion you inserted your 'mouth' into.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.12  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.8    9 months ago

The media reports; the left supposes. And just like its opposers, the left, placed too much emphasis where it should not have been. However, nobody issued the right the license to exploit the media or the left ill-conceived statements indefinitely.

I suggest you let the Mueller Report speak for itself. (Like you SAY you would for the IG Report until you made exception for it to not speak on your behalf.)

And neither of us can speak to these long, ongoing, conspiracy theories and irreconcilable differences of opinion, spin, and displacement of fact coming from the right about the FBI. Though, you will try I am sure. For my part, I won't be wasting time on the DOJ mess of investigating the investigators.  Who ever heard of such a thing anyway?

 
 
 
CB
2.1.13  CB   replied to  Jasper2529 @2.1.9    9 months ago

And you said that to say what that matters to NT, Jasper? Mueller's name IS on the report. We don't have to imagine its relevance for being on it!

 
 
 
Jasper2529
2.1.14  Jasper2529  replied to  CB @2.1.13    9 months ago

I find your "tone" rather confrontational and abrasive, but I'll do my best to reply to your comment in a polite manner.

And you said that to say what that matters to NT, Jasper?

I did not mention NT in comment 2.1.9, CB. Further, I would never presume to know what "matters" to every NT member.

Mueller's name IS on the report.

Yes. I never said differently.  

We don't have to imagine its relevance for being on it!

But, did you not find it odd that, in his testimony, Mueller didn't know what Fusion GPS is? If this 2+ year investigation was actually run by Robert Mueller, surely he would know the name of the company related to the Steele Dossier! It's related to the "report" that bears Mueller's name. Please allow me to refresh your memory:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mueller-on-fusion-gps-im-not-familiar-with-that

Enough old news/history and back to topic. Nice talking with you again.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.11    9 months ago
Therefore, handle the context of the Mueller Report; deny that context matters at all; or step out of this discussion you inserted your 'mouth' into

Oh, for crying out loud.

Even Congressional Democrats couldn't use the Great Mueller Report to impeach Trump after braying that is exactly what they were going to do.

If even learned, wise, savvy, and desperate Congressional Democrats couldn't see the context as you do, might it simply not exist as you see it?

 
 
 
CB
2.1.16  CB   replied to  Jasper2529 @2.1.14    9 months ago

My tone is not for talking points this early (if ever) in the new year. Besides, maybe my tone has something to do with "urin—/ana—/feca—" and such which you brought up in the thread above—but maybe not!

I don't have to stick to your comment exactly, I am allowed to 'branch out' into discussion some. I did.

Mueller did not fill himself obligated to do Congress' bickering, backbiting, and/or job of political investigation (and absurdity for the history books) for them, I'd reason. Moreover, he wants to stay about the fray and buffoonery on display and he knew these politicians, republicans especially in his own party no doubt, were waiting to "stupid the heaven" out of him—for all time. He took a proper pass. Also, you video has no sound (for me anyway).

And in case there is a question - I watched his full testimony in real-time. No, I did not find it odd. Mr. Mueller chose not to respond to many things which he referred the esteemed congress to his report to peruse (and act upon).

Yes, back on topic.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.17  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.15    9 months ago

You will have to read and provide a clear contextual statement that it does not to know for sure. Now if you don't have that. . . wait for a time. . . when it is all said and done. This, with all the circus quality activity in congress occurring is not that time. But, I digress. I have partially read the Mueller Report and especially the area in question. But I am not inclined to hand you anything at all without you earning it.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
2.1.18  Jasper2529  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.15    9 months ago
Even Congressional Democrats couldn't use the Great Mueller Report to impeach Trump after braying that is exactly what they were going to do.

And, this brings us to today, January 5, 2020. Over four years of radical left-wing, convoluted impeachment hysteria, and Pelosi is still afraid to provide the US Senate with articles of impeachment against a POTUS who she and her Komrades insist is "an existential threat to our 'democracy' " although they have zero evidence.

Even though she's elderly, this isn't her first impeachment rodeo. She allowed her radical left to paint her into a corner, and she doesn't know how to get out of it and save face. Too bad, Ms. Pelosi ... you should have known better than to think you also control the US Senate.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3  The Magic Eight Ball    9 months ago

I'm not down with dismissal. I want to see the bidens, the whistleblower, and others including schiff, forced to testify.

based on that? my bet is pelosi would gladly accept this deal.  it lets her off the hook too easy. of course, she will still bitch about it all for optics

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4  Jasper2529    9 months ago
If we don’t get the articles this week, then we need to take matters in our own hands and change the rules, deem them to be delivered to the Senate, so we can start the trial, invite the House over to participate if they would like. If they don’t come, dismiss the case and get on with governing the country,” Graham said.

Sounds reasonable. After all, many Democrats - including Pelosi, Schiff, Swalwell, Schumer, Bernie, Biden, Warren, The Squad, Maxine, et al - accused Trump of being an existential threat to our "democracy". If he's such a "threat", Pelosi would have submitted the articles immediately. They should have wanted the Senate trial to begin right away! 

I wish someone would tell the Democrat impeachment clowns - I mean "legislators" - that our form of government is a constitutional republic ... not a democracy. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



CB
MUVA
pat wilson
Vic Eldred
cjcold
Gazoo
Dulay
GregTx
MonsterMash
Mark in Wyoming





45 visitors