Make a Contribution to Remove NSFW Ads

The Impeachment Hearings , House Vote and Eventual Trial ..All Updates ...AS EXPECTED... TRUMP SKATES

Republicans for rule of law billboard ad … :lol:

TRUMP001.jpg
 
Last edited:
I thought … cough .... wish … that Doug Collins was having a stroke at the end of yesterday's hearing ... :hmm:


.
 
lightbright said:
Spineless faggot ….. :smh: :hmm:

Democratic Rep. Jeff Van Drew, critic of Trump impeachment, to switch to GOP

www.usatoday.com

Democratic Rep. Jeff Van Drew, critic of Trump impeachment, to switch to GOP

Democratic Rep. Jeff Van Drew is expected to make the official announcement that he's switching from Democrat to Republican sometime next week.
www.usatoday.com
.
Click to expand...

easy_b said:
You know what wasn’t really a democrat anyway let him go we don’t need him
Click to expand...
^^This. :yes: This guy received a 100% score rating from the NRA.

Dude announced in October that he would oppose any "Impeachment Inquiry".... LONG BEFORE even hearing ANY testimony whatsoever, in November/December. :rolleyes:

They probably got something on him.:yes:
Wouldn't be surprised if he accepted Russian money from the NRA scandal. :rolleyes:
 
wont pass the senate, attention whoring. no strong dem candidate makes easy re election.
 
lazarus said:
wont pass the senate, attention whoring. no strong dem candidate makes easy re election.
Click to expand...

I won’t get cocky yet. There still a lot of people that hate Donald Trump. If the democrats get maximize voter turn out they can win 2020.

The problem is the democrats don’t have a strong candidate to maximize turnout. I don’t see young people and black voters In masses rallying behind Joe Biden. Joe Biden needs at least 95% of the black vote. I personally think he is only going to get about 83%. The Dems need about 90% to beat trump.
 
I'm still holding out on Bolton releasing a statement and documents during the Senate Trial to prove Trump is guilty. He said he was going to get his revenge. Perfect time to do it with the addition of his book release.
 
I'm sitting watching CNN"s "Erin Burnett Outfront". She just interviewed Harvard law Professor Laurence Tribe, who made a great point and makes sense of that asshole's constant tweeting all day. He stated that the House shouldn't move the impeachment count to the Senate, where we all know it will fail, and let it sit out there. Trump's looking for validation on his presidency and as long as the impeachment is out there, he'll have to fight an uphill battle. The GOP already has plans on moving this out of the way quickly so they can move on getting him elected to a 2nd term. As long as he has to fight it, along with trying to keep the courts from releasing his financial records, it may be enough for him to jump ship, and a nervous breakdown, or worst. Interesting move.
 
Last edited:



Relevant point

Republicans have handed Democrats a political gift by making it clear they plan on acquitting President Trump after the most minimal Senate impeachment trial possible. The question is whether Democrats can seize this opportunity. In a divided Congress, House Democrats control one important weapon. According to many legal experts, they can withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate — meaning that no impeachment trial can occur until the Republican Senate leadership agrees to some approximation of a fair and thorough process.

In the face of this obvious bad faith, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has proposed a set of rules that were agreed upon by both parties for Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999. There is no legal or ethical reason not to apply those rules to Trump’s trial. Clinton, after all, was accused of lying under oath about an extramarital affair;Trump is accused of trying to blackmail a foreign leader into helping him discredit a political rival.

We have no idea how McConnell will respond to Schumer’s not-so-bold suggestion that Democrats and Republicans should be held to the same standard. Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe recently tweeted that if McConnell “rejects these reasonable ground rules & insists on a non-trial, the House should consider treating that as a breach of the Senate’s oath & withholding the Articles until the Senate reconsiders.” He later clarified in a follow-up tweet that “by ‘withholding’ the Articles I don’t mean not voting for them — I mean voting for them but holding off on transmitting them to the Senate.


Tribe elaborated on this idea further in an email to Salon, comparing this process to a corrupt trial in criminal court:

Imagine this scenario: A prosecutor about to obtain a grand jury indictment learns that the foreman of the trial jury (whose members, for purposes of this thought experiment, we’ll have to assume are known in advance, as is the case with the Senate though not in the typical criminal case) has threatened to let the accused decide how the trial will be conducted — and has intimated that it will be a “trial” in name only, one orchestrated in close coordination with defense counsel. Other key jurors also announce that they don’t intend to listen to any evidence but have already made up their minds to acquit.
Click to expand...
Republicans seem to believe they make Trump seem innocent — in the face of widespread public disapproval of his actions — by refusing to take the accusations against him seriously. Yet by more or less revealing that they don’t care what Trump did, and will give him a pass no matter what, Republicans have offered Democrats an excellent opportunity to spin a Senate acquittal of Trump as proof that his entire party has been corrupted by him.

That was not exactly Tribe’s point, which was more closely tied to legal procedure. In his scenario, he said, a scrupulous prosecutor would refuse to go forward with a fixed trial, and would instead ask the judge to replace the corrupt foreman, along with any other jurors who had clearly made up their minds about the defendant’s guilt or innocence. That isn’t likely to happen in this case, he continued:

In the world of impeachment trials, it’s unrealistic to imagine that the presiding judge, here the Chief Justice of the United States, would grant any such motion. The next best solution would seem to be the one I’ve been proposing: The “prosecutor,” here whoever Speaker Pelosi designates as the House Managers, should proceed to pin down the indictment by having the full House vote for the two Articles of Impeachment approved last week by the Judiciary Committee, but should then hold that indictment in abeyance, letting it hang like the fabled Sword of Damocles over the heads of both the president and the Senate Majority Leader and those in his caucus who, like Senator Graham, have admitted they will happily violate their oaths of office and break the special oath they will take for purposes of impeachment.
Click to expand...
Tribe concluded that Pelosi should let that sword keep hanging there until McConnell and Schumer can reach agreement “on how to conduct the closest possible approximation to a fair trial under the politically charged circumstances.”

Would such a maneuver be legal and constitutional? Tribe admitted there is no precedent, but argued it would be “fully consistent with the text, structure, history, and purposes of the Impeachment Power as outlined in the Constitution.”
 

Make a Contribution to Remove NSFW Ads
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MASTERBAKER
President Trump on Friday night rescinded the security clearances of former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, s
Replies
1
Views
82
CoTtOnMoUf
CoTtOnMoUf
Mask
Holy snap Harris might get in after all…. Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now
Replies
11
Views
301
Duece
Duece
letsshoot
Thousand Plus Reason Not To Vote For Trump 2024
Replies
16
Views
514
Database Error
Database Error
Mask
Speaker of the House new foreign aid bill includes money for Ukraine, Israelis, Taiwan and ban on tiktok. Tiktok ban is about Isreal not China.
2 3 4
Replies
132
Views
4K
Politic Negro
Politic Negro
ballscout1
Dumbest Congress Ever? A Look Back At The Shambolic 118th Meeting Of U.S. Lawmakers
Replies
0
Views
73
ballscout1
ballscout1
Back
Top