Jump to content

Can McConnell proceed “in absentia”?


Deadric
 Share

Recommended Posts

Some people think they are clever by avoiding being served court documents to show up. They are really hurting themselves, because eventually the court will proceed without them and they lose the chance to defend themselves.

 

Could McConnell do the same here. Give Nancy a set amount of time to turn over the impeachment documents or proceed “in absentia”? After all, it is all public information anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 210
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

3 minutes ago, Deadric said:

Some people think they are clever by avoiding being served court documents to show up. They are really hurting themselves, because eventually the court will proceed without them and they lose the chance to defend themselves.

 

Could McConnell do the same here. Give Nancy a set amount of time to turn over the impeachment documents or proceed “in absentia”? After all, it is all public information anyway.

What’s the Consitution say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Deadric said:

Some people think they are clever by avoiding being served court documents to show up. They are really hurting themselves, because eventually the court will proceed without them and they lose the chance to defend themselves.

 

Could McConnell do the same here. Give Nancy a set amount of time to turn over the impeachment documents or proceed “in absentia”? After all, it is all public information anyway.

 

Montana says that they can.

I hope he is right on this issue.                    

 

What is wrong with a "Mexican Stand-Off"?     

I can work that.  Let's not give one g/damned inch!!    

 

  "HOLD THE LINE !!  HOLD THE LINE !!".       

                                                                       Russell Crow, Maximus Decimus.

                                                                       Gladiator.                                               🍺(it's 12 o'clock somewhere)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

It may say what happens, but it does not say WHEN.

Just as it does not say when the Senate must consider  confirming a Supreme Court nominee.

Pelosi has leverage, and she is not in any way dumb or unskilled at politics.


Just like the Senate can not tell Nancy when to hand them over, the House can not tell Mitch when to hold the trial. They could just say “we are starting in February, you are welcome to present your case or not.” Then have it and acquit him based on the public information, completely ignoring Negative Nancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deadric said:


Just like the Senate can not tell Nancy when to hand them over, the House can not tell Mitch when to hold the trial. They could just say “we are starting in February, you are welcome to present your case or not.” Then have it and acquit him based on the public information, completely ignoring Negative Nancy.

And running a kangaroo court. But that will not happen. Pelosi  is smarter than Mich and not as big an A-hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, XavierOnassis said:

And running a kangaroo court. But that will not happen. Pelosi  is smarter than Mich and not as big an A-hole.


You aren’t getting it. I am saying it doesn’t matter how smart Nancy is, Mitch could move forward without her. Just ignore her and proceed with his trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

It may say what happens, but it does not say WHEN.

Just as it does not say when the Senate must consider  confirming a Supreme Court nominee.

Pelosi has leverage, and she is not in any way dumb or unskilled at politics.

 

Merritt Garland.

Will the GOP respond in kind if Ruth Bader falls?  No sir.  We will not.  If the Dems are going to cheat.....

then we are going to cheat more.   No honor in this game, is there?   Well.....too bad.

 

"The problem with the rat-race is.....only the biggest, dirtiest, rats win".

                                                                                                                                 Al Capone                       🍺

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, XavierOnassis said:

It may say what happens, but it does not say WHEN.

Just as it does not say when the Senate must consider  confirming a Supreme Court nominee.

Pelosi has leverage, and she is not in any way dumb or unskilled at politics.

Not true ....

Pelosi actually has NO leverage .....now.

If the Senate wants they can hold a vote without the articles being delivered.

Which would be highly embarrassing for the Dems who made excuse after excuse to rush this through instead of taking it to court .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Deadric said:


Just like the Senate can not tell Nancy when to hand them over, the House can not tell Mitch when to hold the trial. *1. They could just say “we are starting in February, you are welcome to present your case or not.” Then have it and acquit him based on the public information, completely ignoring Negative Nancy.

 

*1. Like the way that would go down...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

It may say what happens, but it does not say WHEN.

Just as it does not say when the Senate must consider  confirming a Supreme Court nominee.

Pelosi has leverage, and she is not in any way dumb or unskilled at politics.

Pelosi is actually quite masterful.  She's bright, patient, and considers all her options carefully.  I think it only makes sense to refuse to pass the articles on until there is some sort of process in place that will provide an impartial trial of the evidence presented.

 

Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell have disqualified themselves as jurors by stating they're not going to be impartial.  If I told that to the locals when I was last called for jury duty, I would have been dismissed immediately.  The same should happen here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, XavierOnassis said:

And running a kangaroo court. But that will not happen. Pelosi  is smarter than Mich and not as big an A-hole.

Your accusation is silly .....

Considering this whole partisan  impeachment is an affront to the notion of jurisprudence ....

And I bet Mich would not have committed political suicide like Pelosi and the Dems have......

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deadric said:


Yes, and the Senate gets to make their own rules. The House has no power to stop the Senate from just proceeding regardless of being given the articles or not.

There's no rule or law stating that articles of impeachment MUST be handed over to the Senate immediately.  There is no timetable and Pelosi is going to make sure the process is thorough and impartial (not sandbagged by party-of-country obstructionists).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RollingRock said:

Pelosi is actually quite masterful.  She's bright, patient, and considers all her options carefully.  I think it only makes sense to refuse to pass the articles on until there is some sort of process in place that will provide an impartial trial of the evidence presented.

 

Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell have disqualified themselves as jurors by stating they're not going to be impartial.  If I told that to the locals when I was last called for jury duty, I would have been dismissed immediately.  The same should happen here.

I agree with that. Putting a person  on any jury who states that he has already decided on a verdict before the trial would result in a mistrial , and followed by a dismissal of the judge that allowed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RollingRock said:

I think it only makes sense to refuse to pass the articles on until there is some sort of process in place that will provide an impartial trial of the evidence presented.

 

Piglosi has no authority to set the trial parameters in the Senate.  If fact, not passing the articles to the Senate could be construed as obstruction as the Senate has the sole authority to try impeachments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RollingRock said:

There's no rule or law stating that articles of impeachment MUST be handed over to the Senate immediately.  There is no timetable and Pelosi is going to make sure the process is thorough and impartial (not sandbagged by party-of-country obstructionists).


And the House can’t tell the Senate not to hold the trial. The information is public. Mitch could just hold the proceedings without the articles and ignore Nancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Deadric said:

Some people think they are clever by avoiding being served court documents to show up. They are really hurting themselves, because eventually the court will proceed without them and they lose the chance to defend themselves.

 

Could McConnell do the same here. Give Nancy a set amount of time to turn over the impeachment documents or proceed “in absentia”? After all, it is all public information anyway.

McConnell has many options...and Pelosi doesn't like any of them.   lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...