There was a third tie in that trial and an objection was raised and he didnt cast the tie breaking vote.So what is the precedent?If there is an objection he cant vote? The Senate could also vote to limit roberts rights.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
History dictates Roberts would be tie breaker, if so I see him letting the witnesses come forward so that he's not hung with being the decision maker on Impeachment and hung out for history as the person that decided a POTUS fate.

He'd be hung with that regardless of whether he votes or not. Were I him I'd sit it out. "It was the Senate's decision. The Senate decided."

I trust John Roberts about as far as I can throw him though.

He seems all to eager to bend over for the Democrats and fuck Republican over, it's happened before with this guy.

Hopefully this farce ends tonight with the expected acquittal and we can move on or at least until the Democrats start Impeachment II which you know they are plotting as we speak.

Meanwhile, aside from the brilliant if not semi-in-the-weeds argumentation of mixed intentions as no way near an impeachable offense, Jay Sekulow delivered a 100-megaton mic-drop on Schiff-for-Brains:

Sekulow: "After 31 or 32 times you said you proved every aspect of your case... [pauses for response]
That's what you said."

Schiff: "We did."

Sekulow: "Well then I don't think we need any witnesses."

back on that stupid E Jean Carroll suit for DNA, the last time this was brought up, didn't she advise a woman to have sex in a department store in her advice column? I had a look on the internet for that and can't seem to find it. will look a bit more. it will be dismissed outright.

got it- on breitbart:
https://www.breitbart.com/poli...-alleged-trump-rape/

sad honest truth from Romney

https://hotair.com/headlines/a...tt-romney-man-alone/

Mr. Romney said he was not one for dwelling or looking back.

really ?

“You go back to my campaigns,” he said. “I sort of watch how the president reacts to his opponents, and it’s not the way I did it. But you know what? He won and I didn’t. On the other hand, he won and I didn’t but I would not have done what he’s done in order to win.”

It is not clear what exactly Mr. Romney is referring to here, nor does he elaborate except to repeat the last part: “I would not have done some of the things he did.”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

the DEMs savaged Romney and his family in 2012. But he would not have done the things needed to win.

I think Romney could have won, but he didn't have the fighting spirit to do so. If only he had attacked obama as nasty as he attacks Donald Trump

He despises Trump. or maybe he is just supremely jealous

I cannot state in words how much I despise chuck schumer, and really all of the dems involved with this impeachment hoax. He just said if the Republicans vote no on witnesses, this will be the biggest coverup since watergate!

The projection is comical. Never give up the con.

How has this shit been allowed to go on for this long?

We keep mentioning points scored and how well things are presented or articulated as though the fucking leftists will concede???

Really?

These pieces of shit will never give up. They will never say, "well, you're right and you win."

Why do we keep thinking we can win by logic and following the rules?

They are at war with us, despite most folks being unaware.

They want us dead. They want to load us in boxcars and have us exterminated.

When are we going to come to grips with this situation?

We need to take the gloves off and we're late.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:


I think Romney could have won, but he didn't have the fighting spirit to do so. If only he had attacked obama as nasty as he attacks Donald Trump

He despises Trump. or maybe he is just supremely jealous

I think it's 100% jealousy with Mittens.

He didn't have the balls to do what Trump did to win and is reminded of that daily as Trump sits in the Oval Office and not him.

quote:

Originally posted by wxdave:
I cannot state in words how much I despise chuck schumer, and really all of the dems involved with this impeachment hoax. He just said if the Republicans vote no on witnesses, this will be the biggest coverup since watergate!

The projection is comical. Never give up the con.

Well that was expected.

quote:

I think Romney could have won, but he didn't have the fighting spirit to do so. If only he had attacked obama as nasty as he attacks Donald Trump

He despises Trump. or maybe he is just supremely jealous

... and I think he wants another crack at the apple. He's doing whatever he thinks will help Mitt in 2024.
I hope Utahns are smart enough not to re-elect him in 2024, but we are stuck with him and his BS for at least another 4 years.

https://hotair.com/archives/ed...artisan-impeachment/

STEPHANOPOULOS: If a partisan impeachment was wrong in 1974, wrong in 1998, why isn’t it wrong now?

BIDEN: ‘ Cause it’s not a partisan impeachment . He violated the Constitution. Period.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Only Democrats voted for it in the House and one independent.

BIDEN: Well, that doesn’t mean that the facts, the underlying facts, George, whether the Constitution’s been violated. That’s the issue. That’s the issue, and — was the Constitution violated? Period.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Even if it’s a party-line vote?

BIDEN: Even if it’s a party-line vote. It just reflects on those who know, in fact, in their heart and their head that in fact its a violation of the Constitution to do what he did, and in fact vote no. That’s a party-line vote but it doesn’t make it right. A party-line vote that doesn’t relate to a constitutional violation is a different thing.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

so when you don't have a leg to stand on, just talk nonsense

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In this case, the first article doesn’t even specify a crime or an explicit “constitutional violation,” just an “abuse of power.”

The second article on obstruction assumes that any exercise of executive privilege in the face of a House investigation automatically violates the Constitution, even without first challenging that exercise in court.

Biden’s point in 1998 — and it wasn’t a bad one even then — is that Congress should refrain from using impeachment unless a large, bipartisan consensus of its necessity emerges. Otherwise, it erodes confidence in the institution itself and makes it appear like a plaything for party politics.

There will likely be a Dem or two that will vote to end this now. Maybe Manchin, ...

Remember how Kavanaugh played out?

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...to-vote-on-witnesses

Lawmakers are to vote Friday on whether to hear from more witnesses in President Trump's Senate impeachment trial.

There is scheduled to be four hours of debate, before moving to a vote on witnesses, expected in the evening.

It appears that Republicans have enough votes to block more witnesses, after Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., announced last night he would not vote to allow more witnesses.

This sparked fury from Democrats, who have said that they'll simply refuse to accept his all-but-certain acquittal because his "sham" trial lacked proper witnesses and evidence.

From Fox News' Marisa Schultz: "Signaling how they will message the saga in the coming months on the campaign trail, top Democratic leaders in the House and Senate argued Trump can never erase the stain of impeachment because the trial wasn’t legitimate."

"The president's acquittal will be meaningless," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., declared Friday, "because it will be the result of a sham trial. If there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink."

I wonder if crazy ol' uncle Joe ever watches and listens to himself on playback? If so: I wonder if he's as puzzled about his comments as are sane individuals?

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
"The president's acquittal will be meaningless," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., declared Friday, "because it will be the result of a sham trial.

There they go again: Projecting. The sham was in the House, Senator.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:


"The president's acquittal will be meaningless," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., declared Friday, "because it will be the result of a sham trial. If there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink."

They really are terrified of 4 more years of Trump, aren't they?

Scared SHITLESS, the whole lot of them.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, one of Democratic house managers, has announced he will be leaving Washington to be with his wife -- who has been battling pancreatic cancer.

Nadler:

I am sorry to not be able to stay in Washington for the conclusion of the Senate impeachment trial but I need to be home with my wife at this time. We have many decisions to make as a family. I have every faith in my colleagues and hope the Senate will do what is right.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


w his wife fighting pancreatic cancer, he spends his time in a sham impeachment.

So he can spend all this time "prosecuting" their impeachment case, but when it's nut cuttin time and you have to vote, not so much. Telling of how he feels the vote will go.

I mean, I hate it for him but damn, classic stuff right there.

aaaaaaaaaand here we go again with the desperate Dems and their tricks.

HOW ARE THEY GETTING THIS?

From the Daily Mail:

BREAKING NEWS: New John Bolton bombshell explodes minutes before Senate starts debating whether to call witnesses: His book is revealed to say Donald Trump ordered him to set up meeting between Rudy Giuliani and Ukraine president

So what? The POTUS is not allowed to have his underlings set up meetings with world leaders now?

This crap is getting ridiculous.

It was just announced on ABC Murkowski is voting NO on witnesses.

Thank you, Senator Murkowski.