Nor for documents. The GOP does not want an actual trial.

and tell him to shut his stupid pie-hole?


p.s. Is this the guy who beat Sen McCaskill? Help us, Lord.

He is a total failure as Chief Justice, again, on purpose to do the rw oligarchs bidding to destroy our constitutional protections and make it so that only votes for them count and there are no free elections, no free public schools, no Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid and no min. wage or labor laws, no environmental laws, just free reign to rape and pillage the working class and poor. That is their dream and Roberts (along with the other 4 Russian Repugs) the thief in charge and the Russian Repug Senate are doing their very best to implement it.

Can’t stand him. He is like a little kid wanting all the attention.

he's presiding, not dictating.

If Roberts issues a ruling, the Senate can overrule him with a vote.

The Senate makes the rules. The Senate is jury. The Senate is, in fact, judge. The chief justice enforces the rules that are made up for the occasion by the Senate and tries to provide order so the Senate can conduct its business. The House has voted--it's not an unbiased referee. The Senators are the jury, during testimony and arguments they have their assigned job. That leaves judges from the judiciary. But the only judges in the Constitution are those of the Supreme Court.

As for Hawley's motions, you can't make a motion unless you have one written down. I don't know how many motions I wrote that either I didn't propose or which went without a second when I was doing committee work in my little corner of the world. In fact, sometimes I would make motions just to rile things up a bit--something needed to be done, and when confronted with a bad motion others would focus on what a good motion had to look like.

He beat Claire McCaskill.He is even worse than Roy Blunt-I never believed that would be possible!

He's my Pile of Shit in Claire's chair as well. I LOATHE him. I can't call him "my senator"--that would imply I have some respect for him, and I have none.

Agree with you.

Blunt was reelected in 2016 on Trump's coattails.

did take her seat. He’s a wannabe the way I have him figured.

And why hasn't getting trump to testify been their goal all along? Bill Clinton and Hillary both testified under oath in investigations, so why not them ?

For you younger DU members, the $64,000 Question was an American game show broadcast from 1955 to 1958, which became embroiled in the 1950s quiz show scandals.

and the voting machine deal.

Sure would be nice to know why some Saudis bailed Hared's ass out of 666 Park Avenue

Exactly! Subpoena Trump. Everything else is noise.

and Nunes was in the loop too.

they're suckers for conspiracy theories and are worshippers of a washed up reality show star.

What lies did they plant or truth did they remove just for the purposes of this mock trial/campaign interference? Guaranteed they did this to promote their top foreign policy aim, subvert America and destroy it from within with the assistance of Impotus3.

Waiting to see who is ahead in the primary perhaps.

It will be 100% phony, but will hurt until it's disproved. That's another reason they will hold it, to prevent it from being disproved before the election.

Whether the GOoPer senators look like fools makes no difference.

They will just invent some more "deep state" bullshit and claim that nominee Biden is deep in corruption but it is being hidden by the deep state.
This will be very similar to "but her emails."

That is their goal

finish, go away, complete . . .

Republicans already have their talking points and will in unison spout it with conviction. The corporate media and hate radio will run with it.

Majority of Americans will know it was rigged, and know that we will continue to suffer from the no caring Republican's actions.

Vote them out.

I was under the impression that it is against the law to ask for the identity of a whistleblower, Not sure if that is just for civil court determination of wrongful firing, harassment, etc. or if this is a criminal issue.

I had ethics training that said that not only are whistle blowers protected it is illegal to identify them.

Anyone know how this applies to the federal government whistleblower law?

Is asking who the whistle blower is a crime on its own?

If it is, Schiff could ask Roberts to quash the subpoena as an illegal question.

Here are some.

5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). The whole section, including where it says this applies to "employees." Congress and Trump aren't employees.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/776481504/can-trump-legally-out-the-whistleblower-experts-say-it-would-not-violate-any-law


https://www.factcheck.org/2019/11/legal-implications-of-outing-the-whistleblower/
"Federal law prevents only inspectors general and their staffs from revealing the name of a whistleblower."
https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/3829/text (section 2 is, I suspect, the relevant part)

https://www.whistleblowers.org/the-intelligence-community-whistleblower-what-you-need-to-know/ seems to speak to this issue, but a close reading says it doesn't. Just "we need protections"--implying we don't have any for whistleblowers in this guy's situation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-whistleblower-e/explainer-is-it-illegal-for-trump-or-congress-to-name-the-impeachment-whistleblower-idUSKBN1XH2QS

there wasn't a decent chance senators will vote to have witnesses and documents.

If they get to talk to witnesses, do we get ours? Except for the fact that Russia hacked Burisma, which could be used to plant false stuff, I'd take my chances, in order to call Bolton and Parnas.

Not sure if each witness is subject to an up or down vote, though.

I'm new to trials without witnesses. If I were Dems, then, I'd be ready with my own requests.

and lets ask about the 200 million dollars that Kentucky got for a payoff from a Russian oligarch that is part of the investigation in some form or another..............................lets go .........................asshole.......................

unfortunately (replaced Claire McCaskill in last election). A lot of us in MO can't stand him. He's ignoring the law (the whistle blower law), licking rump's boots, and just about anything else sickening to all. I am hoping that we get a good candidate in MO to take on this piece of garbage...MO deserves better, way better. Any suggestions, e.g., a MO War Hero or something of the sort? Help pls!

That is how we get fresh blood in DC.

STEP UP

And my condolences to you for having to endure him as your Senator!

I have the dubious honor of having Ms Elusive Elise Stefanik for my rep in NY-21.

You will fail with that strategy!

To have prosecuting attorneys testify in cases they are prosecuting?

And you condone “outing” whistleblowers? Endangering their lives?

And, Biden was already investigated and nothing was found.

Do try to keep up dear. You are making yourself look silly.

And announce them. We can play this game all day.

They didn't do anything wrong so they have nothing to hide. The whistleblower is a different story though - that would set a horrible precedent.

Then to do something stupid and prove it.