P
ProVobis
Guest
Trump said.
That’s where I mute the TV.
That’s where I mute the TV.
Last edited:
The Case for Impeachment Is Overwhelming | The American Conservative
- Status
V
Victoria33
Guest
They may never deliver these articles, do we wait until next Summer? Really…
Rush Limbaugh: Pelosi Will Never Turn Over the Articles of Impeachment for Acquittal in the Senate | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
On Wednesday night following the party line vote by Democrats to impeach President Trump Nancy Pelosi spoke to reporters.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Yes, that sounds like it will work.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
Seeking a real trial is reasonable always. Concealing material witnesses is never reasonable
M
Maximus1
Guest
The indicted/ impeached guy keeps getting quoted as if he is a neutral commentator. I find it amusing after 3 years of his relentless ," I’m a victim and a bully," schtick.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
She wants to make sure the Senate will be fair although that was the least of her
worries during the hearings in the House of Representatives.
worries during the hearings in the House of Representatives.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Nothing unfair about house hearing.
A
AlNg
Guest
Not me. I think that what Schiff said was an outright lie. Schiff claims that Trump communicated the following: “And I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent. Understand? Lots of it, on this and on that.”
Last edited:
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
You must have been watching the fake news channel.
L
Lys
Guest
The TV cameras transmit the same picture and sound, no matter which channel transmits them.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Ergo? …
Here is a response to Feldman from the Republican witness Jonathan Truley.
Trump Stands Impeached: A Response To Noah Feldman
In the House Judiciary Committee, I had some fundamental disagreements with my friend Professor Noah Feldman on issues ranging from the basis for impeachment on the basis of specific crimes (briber…
jonathanturley.org
The House has full power of Impeachment,.
The House adopted a resolution saying that Trump is impeached.
Trump is Impeached.
House rules were followed. She is seeking that the Senate also follow its rules.
If the Senate does not show signs of acting in good faith, then there is this possibility:
Biased Senators Should Be Disqualified From the Impeachment Trial | National Law Journal
Because some senators have made no secret of their refusal to be impartial, the House managers prosecuting the case against the president should move for them to be disqualified from sitting in judgment.
www.law.com
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
I watched the hearings and not the GOP grandstanding.
You don’t grandstand WHEN YOU HAVE A FACT BASED ARGUMENT TO MAKE.
The GOP argument can be summed this way:
It’s a farce of a travesty, of a travesty of a farce, of a farce of a travesty, on and on and on.
You don’t grandstand WHEN YOU HAVE A FACT BASED ARGUMENT TO MAKE.
The GOP argument can be summed this way:
It’s a farce of a travesty, of a travesty of a farce, of a farce of a travesty, on and on and on.
M
Maximus1
Guest
If Trump bites on IM NOT IMPEACHED YET, the Senate is then 100% powerless
P
PetraG
Guest
Actually, if you aren’t going to grandstand while speaking to your fellow members of Congress, it must mean there aren’t any video cameras rolling in the room.
Grandstanding has almost nothing to do with whether or not a member of Congress is telling the truth or has a case or any of the rest. I think they are all quite aware of that. The grandstanding is for the constituents, not for the actual voting members. It is what you do when you’re on reality TV.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
That’s like saying
“The police have the power to arrest citizens when they have a warrant.
The police have an arrest warrant for Bob.
Bob has been placed under arrest.”
Bob may be as good as arrested, but he’s not arrested until he’s been arrested. There is a process to impeachment, just as there is a process to indictment and arrest and so on.
When the House transmits their charges to the Senate, then the President will really have been impeached, technically speaking, in a way that satisfies everybody. But yes, he is as good as impeached right now and according to some law scholars the requirements to count him as impeached have already been met. It is just that not all of the straw-splitting law scholars have been satisfied that the deed is technically done.
Whatever. The House has done what can be slowed down but not undone. Perhaps Mrs. Pelosi didn’t want to send the articles to the Senate before sending the President his invitation to give his State of the Union address and he has communicated acceptance. (I think she knows he’ll be giving that speech because the Senate will be done with their proceedings by then. She knows he will not be removed, after all. No one ever accused her of being born yesterday.)
Considering the President’s usual grace, I can imagine the State of the Union could have a few uncomfortable moments.
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
Not at all.
It is like saying, when Bob is arrested, that he is arrested.
impeach
VERB
…
- US
charge (the holder of a public office) with misconduct.
“the governor served only one year before being impeached and convicted for fiscal fraud”
P
PetraG
Guest
Well, possibly. It is the constitutional scholars who are arguing about it. Even they admit it is a hair-splitting question. The House does have to serve the papers to the Senate. This doesn’t happen automatically. It has not been done yet. It will be done. The Speaker can be slow about doing anything, but there is no mechanism by which the Speaker or even the House can elect not to send the articles to the Senate after all.
So yes: arguing over whether he is impeached or just as good as impeached is splitting hairs, kind of like saying that the President who secures the electoral votes to win the election isn’t really elected until the Electoral College meets and casts their ballots. As soon as the ballot count of the voters is verified, everyone counts the winner as the President-elect, even if it doesn’t “really” happen for a month or so after the election.
It is a done deal, you are right.
Last edited:
L
Lys
Guest
Bad analogy. The members of the EC are not required to cast their vote for the candidate they were elected to vote for.
No. When the member of the police says: “You are under arrest” then Bob is arrested. No waiting period until all the paperwork is done, or until Bob is actually placed in a (holding) cell.
The same happens here. As soon as the votes have been counted, and the result is declared, the impeachment process is over. Whether the president is actually removed from the office, is a different procedure.
It is rather ridiculous to have such hair-splitting argument. The fact is that the black asterisk of the impeachment will be there, forever tainting the legacy of Trump. It is not as good as a removal would be, but knowing the incredible narcissistic self worshipping of Trump, it is a good start.
History will remember him as the first president who has been impeached in his first term.
P
PetraG
Guest
Well, I would hope no one is arguing that his impeachment is not a done deal, whether the process has gone far enough to declare what moment in time he was/will be impeached. There is no need to beat this discussion to death over a dispute between constitutional scholars.
As for as the “black asterisk,” let’s remember that Gingrich got run out of his place of power before Clinton lost his. I don’t think impeachment is any particularly big victory, except if one wants the satisfaction of knowing that it drives the President himself into a very public spittle-flecked nutty. (Clinton at least did a slightly better job of pretending he wasn’t furious, although he was surely every bit as mad.)
As for what history will remember, the question is whether there will be head-scratching that he was ever elected in the first place or if he’ll be seen as the harbinger of an era of politics that played out according to the rules of realityTV. I certainly think he got into office based on name recognition and a phony aura of administrative competence he cultivated by doing reality TV, and he’s gone on to make the US presidency a reality TV show.
If he stays in office, it will because voters would rather have him accomplish some of what they want, even if he does it badly, than watching some other candidate do a good job at what they don’t want to see done.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
It is political no doubt. I speak of the content of their speaking.
They are going to fast.
They are going to slow.
How about you put it in the courts until Trump’s second term is over so he can enlist more foreign nations in his personal campaign.
They get people on TV, INCLUDING TURLEY to argue Trump has a right to exert executive privilege. Except Trump NEVER asserted executive privilege. PUNDITS on TV have substituted for lawyers within a legal proceedings and people don’t know or don’t care who vote Republican.The only legal way to assert it is question by question. Document by document. Trump actually asserted blanket ,“I am not subject to the law,” which is not a privilege or legal. With McConnell saying Trump can break any law he wants because no matter what if I let it happen the founders created no other mechanism to stop a self declared monarch.
And ultimately the American people know this, so half the nation has decided what was America is over. Not all! The ones that know something have. The rest figure it must be OK because they have no idea.
It is a perfect storm to loose the nation. With an unscrupulous person in charge and willing.
They are going to fast.
They are going to slow.
How about you put it in the courts until Trump’s second term is over so he can enlist more foreign nations in his personal campaign.
They get people on TV, INCLUDING TURLEY to argue Trump has a right to exert executive privilege. Except Trump NEVER asserted executive privilege. PUNDITS on TV have substituted for lawyers within a legal proceedings and people don’t know or don’t care who vote Republican.The only legal way to assert it is question by question. Document by document. Trump actually asserted blanket ,“I am not subject to the law,” which is not a privilege or legal. With McConnell saying Trump can break any law he wants because no matter what if I let it happen the founders created no other mechanism to stop a self declared monarch.
And ultimately the American people know this, so half the nation has decided what was America is over. Not all! The ones that know something have. The rest figure it must be OK because they have no idea.
It is a perfect storm to loose the nation. With an unscrupulous person in charge and willing.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
I have not gotten involved much in the impeachment discussion, as I see it mostly as a partisan, not juridical, move. I would think though that anyone who believe the evidence for impeachment is overwhelming need simply look at the vote, and how solidly it fell along party lines, as will the Senate vote, no doubt. The only thing that disturbs me at all is how someone like Senator McConnell can blatantly state he will not act impartially, as if somehow an impartial hearing would move him to removed the President. His statement could easily be seen as an admission that impartiality can not be risked.
- Status