Bookmark
Wow....yet more DemocRAT obstruction.
As Mark Levin points out (on a different topic but the logic should apply all the same) the objection would be made, but then the Senate can vote using only a 50% majority to over-rule the decision.
Whether they go such a route, we shall see.
I put the odds of impeachment at 80% or so, because the House would look absolutely ridiculous to go through all this only to fail to file articles.
But once it gets to the Senate, they can call whatever witnesses they want. Personally, at this moment in time, I think they should dismiss the charges immediately. But there is something to the logic of using the impeachment for political advantage. The Dems sure are using it for politics. The Senate can turn the trial into a spotlight on Democrat political corruption. Trump’s call asks for 2 favors: Investigate crowdstrike, and find out about this Hunter/Biden bribery of Ukraine. Why did Trump link the two? The House wants to focus on one thing, but the record begs the question why did Trump in his mind link the two issues. If there is a legitimate law enforcement question or corruption issue they should get to the bottom of it.
Article 1, Section 5 - Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.
The rules of the Senate are whatever the Senate says they are. Just as Pelosi and Schiff are dictators in the House, similarly McConnell and his Committee Chairmen are dictators in the Senate.
They can, IF THEY WANT TO, change the damn rules.
Like his previous 158 "bombshells" in recent months.
He and Hannity are walking "bombshell" machines.
What was the "Big One" Joe? Was it that months ago the FISA would be declassified "this week"? Then "next week"? Then "Durham is about to act"? How about "Barr has had enough"? Or was it "Graham is going to hold hearings"?
I just can't keep one "bombshell" straight from another these days.
The biggest laugh line is his "The great men and women in our Department of Justice and the FBI."
Rigght. Keep spewing that Joe.
If the Majority Leader can’t get the Minority Leader to consent to subpoenas, the Majority Leader can dismiss the Case for lack of interest by the Minority.
“In order to issue subpoenas in the Senate, the Senate chairman need the CONSENT of the ranking minority member (Dem).”
Yep, Senate rules - at least until the Democrats take over.
I don’t think it matters, the hard truth is McConnell is going to grant an immediate motion to dismiss, which will pass 51-49ish, or possibly 51-50 with Pence getting the final word before voting to dismiss.
McConnell bound by rules he can change anytime?
Gimmie a break, Joe.
They aren’t doing anything, because they don’t want to.
Simple as that.
Joe G is about as effective as Trey Gowdy. Overselling and under whelming .
Listening to House of Commons proceedings, I sometimes want to vomit. But just the US Senate’s RULEs are nauseating. I pointedly refuse to tune in the Knesset channel on Cellcom. Representative democracy is like a slaughterhouse. Absolutely necessary, but to look ruins the appetite.
When I read this line, I really expected it was a decree from aDamn Shit.
These are Senate rules.
The majority can change them at will.
Thus the article is hyperbole.
Joe D says: “In order to issue subpoenas in the Senate, the Senate chairman need the CONSENT of the ranking minority member (Dem).”
All fine and good Joe. But where did you find this “rule?”
Change the rule.
The Dems would.......and did....................
I thought that was common knowledge, Greassly complained repeatably about not being able to subpoena witnesses.