Fifth Avenue Forum

Will they present a defense of Trump's actions or just complain of what the house did?

Here's the argument that no new evidence should be introduced in the Senate...

Should the senators that are possibly running against trump recuse themselves?

What would be the reason to? Impartiality? Then Republicans would have to also.

Should people running against a political opponent be allowed to vote to remove that person from the office?

Why would the republicans have to?

This is a joke, right?

It’s a **** ing discussion. If Democrats are asking for the WH council to recuse, and McConnell to recuse himself, why is this so outlandish of a discussion?

I mean, the guy running the trial said he is in complete lockstep with the 'defendant' in the proceeding and coordinating with his defense team; should he recuse himself, seeing as such a statement is plainly contrary to the oath of impartiality he just swore?

I'm not going to deny that it's a bad look, and I've been saying so for months. But I honestly don't know if the Senate rules allow or even contemplate recusal from an impeachment proceeding. I know multiple parties have said various members of the other party should recuse themselves for a variety of reasons, but everything I've read is that the rules require the participation of the full Senate.

Should the senators that are possibly running against trump recuse themselves?

What would be the reason to? Impartiality? Then Republicans would have to also.

Should people running against a political opponent be allowed to vote to remove that person from the office?

Why? Because they cannot be impartial, or because it gives the look of not being impartial? The same is true of every Republican, as they count on the president to drum up support down ballot and will be putting their reelection bids in jeopardy if they vote against him.

If you want a shallower answer though, none of them are the nominee yet. In fact Trump isn't even a nominee yet. So until the convention it's sitting senators doing their elected duty of oversight on Executive.

Re-election bids are completely different than actively running against someone.

Sure they aren’t the nominee yet, but they could be deciding who they are running against.

(I’m not for or against either. We already know everyone’s vote in this partisan **** show. Just figured we could have a discussion, but apparently not with some people. Not directed at you Cbear.)

Will they present a defense of Trump's actions or just complain of what the house did?

The reporting I've read is that pretty much since this whole escapade started, the more pragmatic members of the GOP have been arguing for a defense of "wrong, but not impeachable" (which was more or less the Clinton defense). But Trump is so..... Trumpy that he won't stand for that. It has to be a 'perfect call' and that there was nothing wrong and I-have-an-Article-2 blah blah blah.

Should the senators that are possibly running against trump recuse themselves?

What would be the reason to? Impartiality? Then Republicans would have to also.

Should people running against a political opponent be allowed to vote to remove that person from the office?

Why? Because they cannot be impartial, or because it gives the look of not being impartial? The same is true of every Republican, as they count on the president to drum up support down ballot and will be putting their reelection bids in jeopardy if they vote against him.

If you want a shallower answer though, none of them are the nominee yet. In fact Trump isn't even a nominee yet. So until the convention it's sitting senators doing their elected duty of oversight on Executive.

Re-election bids are completely different than actively running against someone.

Sure they aren’t the nominee yet, but they could be deciding who they are running against.

(I’m not for or against either. We already know everyone’s vote in this partisan **** show. Just figured we could have a discussion, but apparently not with some people. Not directed at you Cbear.)

I get it. From an ethics standpoint its touchy. If say Warren or Sanders were Majority leader of the Senate it'd probably look even worse because of the amount of control they'd have over the situation. In this case though, they're all just another face in a crowd. And that's not to say McConnell should recuse, although coming out and advertising he's in lock step with the accused is awful ugly. He doesn't have a personal gain at stake in reality, just the status quo so I wouldn't see a need for his recusal as well.

WH Counsel, implicated or not, are already fighting for their defendant so that's not an issue, they don't need to be impartial. AG Barr being expected to be impartial though isn't reasonable since he's been implicated, but luckily the AG has no role in Impeachment.

Why does Kushner have a security clearance, again?

They should recuse because of election reasons, from the impeachment trial of the president, who is impeached for f***ing with the elections. Bigly tremendous.

**** old man Biden and **** pandering Warren

Why would Dems do this?

#getmoneyoutofpolitics #saynotobillionaires

**** old man Biden and **** pandering Warren

Bernie is the oldest one running.

Seriously. We all know he did it. This isn’t hard, just don’t screw up. But that’s too much to ask for the Dems, and they provide Trump’s base more “evidence” that it’s a hoax.

This is going to get all of them re-elected.

Why would Dems do this?

I think a better question is why would Republicans do it

**** old man Biden and **** pandering Warren

Bernie is the oldest one running.

Biden thinks weed is a gateway drug and video games cause violence. He’s extremely out of touch with... everything.

I've loathed Pam Bondi since the Florida circus in 2000 but she's really hot to this day.

I've loathed Pam Bondi since the Florida circus in 2000 but she's really hot to this day.

What did Pam Bondi do in 2000?

google "pam bondi 2000 election"

She looks like Krang with a wig.

Good read.

Five months of ruin forgotten by all. In what ranks as one of the most heavily ignored and needless catastrophes in recent U.S. history, 548,000 acres of the lower Mississippi Delta, including 231,000 acres of farmland, were silently swallowed in 2019 and submerged for roughly 150 consecutive days. Multiple deaths, 686 homes swamped, three highways under water, and 20,000 people pleading for a modicum of common sense from the federal government, along with a host of Delta farmers unable to plant a single seed in 2019. An acreage zero. Nada. Heaping insult on injury, only a decade prior the source of salvation in the form of relief pumps had been vetoed by federal bureaucrats and deemed a liability by the Environmental Protection Agency.

https://www.agweb.com/article/great-sha ... m8u5BFJiT4