I didn't watch the big TV show last night. The one with the solemnity and professions of deep, deep belief in the Constitution.
I watched the other show, the Trump rally in Battle Creek, Michigan, the one with the festivity and booming good cheer. Trump was gabbing about the economy or reminiscing for the millionth time about the greatest night he ever had — the night he won the presidency back in 2016 — when the news of the vote arrived and word passed up to him that all the Republicans vote no, and he celebrated that. Always looking for the bright side, he is.
Was this the worst night he every had? It was pretty bad, but there he was, exposing himself in public, making a big show of not letting it get him down. His antagonists were back there in Washington, in the swamp, acting dreary and disapproving, but here he was, with his people — the people he's convinced he sees as his people — bubbling with energy.
They're impeaching me! Can you believe it! For nothing! I did nothing! For a phone call! A perfect phone call! These people are crazy! These people are sick!
And now what? The Democrats have their vote, but what can they do with it? Are they waiting until after Christmas to determine whether they're even going to send the case over to the Senate for trial? That way, We the People can brood over the darkness, as if that's what we seek in our winter holidays, or we can act like nothing even happened because we already know nothing can come of it, or we can futz over the legalisms of what to do if the House Democrats withhold the case or the Senate just acquits him anyway.
I guess we're supposed to have a lot of public discourse — commentary from pundits and jibber jabber from everybody — along with public opinion polls, and based on all that, the Democrats will determine what to do next and let us know. If we still care, we'll be challenged to believe that whatever it is they decide to do must be done because of the inexorable demands of the Constitution. If that decision synchs up neatly with the trend in the polls, it will be pure coincidence, we'll be asked to believe.
December 19, 2019
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
100 comments:
This is what has me concerned. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/19/impeachment-as-a-means-to-an-end-and-not-the-end-itself/ "It is likely both articles of impeachment, “Abuse of Power” and “Obstruction“, are designed to support pending HJC court cases seeking: (1) former White House Counsel Don McGahn testimony; and (2) grand jury evidence from the Mueller investigation."
I'll be busy learning and practicing new music for concerts and services.
Thank God, as I approach my 70th birthday, I'm still in demand by employers and I still have a service to perform that gives people pleasure and peace.
I don't have time for this shit. Off to do my yoga and to practice organ.
And, then the grandkids get home from school.
It's always the problem of what women will think. Anybody would guess the dems are in trouble but you never know with women. He did say grab them by the pussy, they haven't forgotten that.
On the one hand, impeachment seems like a $10 Starbucks gift certificate sent by Aunt Judy to her favorite pajama boy nephew.
On the other hand, impeachment seems like the hijacking of power and influence accorded elected officials and the fourth estate.
That Tulsi Gabbard decided to vote present puts her in the Obama column.
Also Trump's sense of humor is not good for women, women think. You can't say that about Pelosi.
The Democrats continue to bluff with a weak hand. Since the Senate will not vote to convict, does anyone really care if or when Pelosi sends impeachment to the Senate? It's a non-issue.
A good compromise, now that we have a parliamentary system, is secret impeachments. Just don't let anybody know and vote for president every four years.
It matters because when one party gets both houses they pick the president. Speaker of the house, in particular. Who doesn't even have to be a member of congress.
Trump's future behavior puts the 2020 election at risk, not that there's any point to the 2020 election.
"That Tulsi Gabbard decided to vote present puts her in the Obama column."
I'm going to do a separate post about what Tulsi means and what this means for Tulsi. I thought of that Obama comparison, but there's a lot more too.
Pelosi isn't good at talking past the sale of Trump's wrongdoing. People keep remembering that they don't agree.
Tulsi means she's a coward at heart. How hard is it to figure out the workings of the constitution on the matter. Oaths mean nothing to any of them. I take it she's not a marine.
If the Democrats committed suicide en masse, it would make a real statement. I would never forget that.
Nobody expects much of any of the others. No divided loyalty for them. It's always party career.
This ruins Tulsi's honor and patriotism schtik.
Tulsi cowered in the foxhole but at least she didn't shoot any of our own troops. Let somebody else do the shooting and I'll come out when it's over. Proud to wear the uniform, though.
Democrats dug their own grave. The only Bipartisanship was Democrats not voting for impeachment. I can't wait until they all start losing their jobs. Can't happen soon enough.
We didn't watch the impeachment. We watched Post play Refugio in the 2A D1 Texas football championship game. Refugio thrashed Post, but the game was still fun, and even though I didn't have a dog in the fight, the game had far more relevance to my life than the impeachment saga in DC. We could have watched the Trump rally, and it would have been great, but even President Trump pales in comparison to Texas high school football.
Made me laugh out loud though....all the tributes to the founding fathers. The same old white slave owning, racist men that they have been tearing down statues of, are now who they are honoring. What a bunch of loons!!
Nothing in the Constitution says the Senate must hand a trial to remove an impeached president, only that it has the sole right to do so. Give Pelosi a deadline. The same deadline the House gave on subpoenas. If sh misses the deadline, the matter is considered ended.
If they don't send it to the Senate then Trump cannot be acquitted of impeachment. Perhaps they think no trial will be better for them than an acquittal.
The problem isn't this impeachment but impeachment when one party holds both houses. The speaker of the house becomes president, and that doesn't even have to be a member of congress.
The party that's willing to do this impeachment would do conviction as well.
According to the 2020 Presidential Odds Tracker, on 11/21 Trump was +130; on 12/5 +125, on 12/17 -105. Biden is +600, Sanders +800.
Don't get cocky, folks. Only when we crush the scumbags come November 2020.
“I don’t care.” Tommie Lee Jones and DDB.
Was this the worst night he every had?
Not hardly! The Democrats handed him a club to beat them with for the next eleven months, and beyond. In fact there are two clubs that he can wield ambidextrously: staging a three year hissy fit to overturn our votes for a legitimately elected President, and then that they did so to protect Joe and Hunter Biden from the consequences of their corruption. The Dumbocrats have shone a spotlight on their penchant for, and tolerance of, corruption.
...can’t be acquitted.
Without a trial it’s just charges.
The only thing that matters is a conviction. And there’s not going to be a conviction. There’s never been a conviction; there was never going to be a conviction.
Did the spending bill make it to the Senate?
Perhaps the President can sit on the spending bill until the Impeachment is settled.
Why are we falling into the dem trap of claiming they've impeached the president? All they have done is bring articles of impeachment against him. He has not been impeached until the senate votes for impeachment. With 2/3 support, no less. And if they choose not to send it over to the senate they are not impeaching anyone. Silly democrats.
An insightful piece by Ann.
Eventually the Democrat base will realize that impeachment means nothing without a conviction in the Senate. Trump will remain our President and protests will ensue.
The weather has moderated, so I'm sure Ann is getting ready for a morning photography run. According to the National Weather Service it's partly cloudy and 17 degrees with a mild south wind in Madison. That creates the potential for a colorful sky at sunrise. It should clear off and reach 37 in Madison, thus creating an opportunity for an interesting sunset.
I watched NBC last night. Chuck Todd was in rare form. He referred to Trump's letter as "crazy." When he was asked if anything in the country would change today, he said that he thought nothing would, and that he could not believe that that was the case.
Here's a clue, Chuck-the American public is smart enough to know that this is not going anywhere. Unlike Congress, we're not wasting time on a pointless endeavor.
Has there ever been more of a sham in American political life? From our media experts to the somber, black-dressed Democrat Party.
Tar and feathers for them all would be too good. But...it's a start.
Even contemplating not sending the Articles to the Senate shows what a sham this is.
Don't decide for the American people that the Senate will be unfair. Let the American people see the process and decide for themselves.
The Trump of the Rallies isn't my cup of tea. I watched until I got bored, and then did something else. But I like the printed word augmented by images and speech. It lets me go at my own pace--which is to skip over a lot of stuff.
Give me the Trump of Twitter!!
My advice to Democrats would be to do the opposite of whatever your instincts tell you. I'm not worried about giving them good advice because I know they aren't capable of taking it.
I'm thinking of Dirty Laundry right now by Don Henley. Gosh, I hate that song. But I believe this whole thing is happening because of the symbiotic relationship between the far left and the media.
"I watched the other show, the Trump rally in Battle Creek, Michigan, the one with the festivity and booming good cheer." Ann, didn't you hear? He said something awful at the rally, something that proves that he is ___ from the impeachment. Mrs. Dingell is deeply hurt...
At least, that's what all the news is saying.
If anyone has a stain on them from this farcical impeachment, it is this generation of Democrat politicians.
What is this about Pelosi holding the articles of impeachment in the House?
If the idea is to bargain with the Senate leadership about their conduct of the trial to come, I would think that even more unconstitutional.
The Constitution is very specific about the Senate being in sole charge of the trial.
The Horde demanded Impeachment by Christmas, and Pelosi ceded to their demands.
I wonder if she's foolish enough to think they are satisfied.
I was interested in Trump's anticipated laugh-line that fell flat. It was his "joke" about John Dingell "looking down on us... maybe he's looking up at us." The audience reaction -- a Trumpist/loyalist audience -- groaned.
Battle Creek is not part of Dingell's old district. But it's not too terribly far away from where the far western edge of Dingell's old district used to stretch (during one iteration of Michigan redistricting). And of course Dingell's wife Debbie now holds the seat, which currently includes Ann Arbor. About an hour's drive.
Especially in the western suburbs of Detroit, John Dingell is a local hero and right now, the lead "trending story" on the website of the Detroit Free Press, is Trump's insult to Dingell's memory.
A mistake by Trump that is going to stick. And cost Trump among some of his core/crossover voters in a crucial swing state that he only won by just 0.23% in 2016.
Well, we know that Trump can count on your vote -- again -- Chuck.
Dingell was a hack's hack. Not entitled to any more respect than any other crappy politician and less than most.
Yeah I doubt it Chuck. I live in Dingell's district. Old folks know who he is, most others are meh. It won't matter.
I did like Trumps line about the roads though. 'They wanna raise your gas taxes'. I had to laugh. Happy he knows what really bothers Michiganders.
Now comes the fun part. CTH ha pointed out that there are several lawsuits by the House pending right now. They have apparently been asked whether or not the case for access to the Mueller grand jury information is now moot. And the court expects an answer next Monday. The critical thing here is that to keep in mind is that the Mueller investigation had available to it all of the FISA Title I wiretapping, etc, and probably a lot of the 702 results from searching the NSA databases accumulated over the previous four years. A treasure trove of opposition research, illegally obtained through persistent and egregious FISA abuse, and very nicely sorted and collated at taxpayer expense. The juicy parts were then run through grand juries by the hyper partisan prosecutors, presumably at the behest of their close Lawfare friends. All that is needed now is a court case allowing the House access to this grand jury information, and when implemented, all this illegally obtained (at taxpayer expense) opposition research will, almost instantaneously be leaked to the DNC by Schift and his Lawfare people, and squirreled away for later use by the DNC. They found a compliant Obama appointed district court judge. Now all they need is buyoff by appeals courts. And this would possibly explain the Article on Obstruction, because much of the Mueller Report involved equally bogus claims of Obstruction. And with Palsi’s delay sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, they can use that to argue that they need all the Obstruction information in the Mueller grand jury testimony for their impeachment case in the Senate. Etc. Lawfare all the way.
Now that the Democrat controlled house is done with their show trial, media is all concerned about impartiality.
Unexpectedly.
Considering the desire to impeach him from election day on, all I can say is, "took you long enough."
I really hope history emphasizes the partisan wet dream motivation for this impeachment.
The impeachment is getting about as much respect and attention as it deserves. Another thing ruined by the left simply because they could. There is no other reason for doing it. They just can't leave anything alone, even unprecedented success and prosperity.
I know people like that in my life. They never step in to fix anything needing fixed, but they can't resist fucking with things that are going fine. Then the real fixers have to step in and fix that too.
LOL! Well, at least Trump has Putin defending him now.
Unexpectedly.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/19/politics/vladimir-putin-impeachment-press-conference-intl/index.html
Devin Nunes has convinced me of just one thing in all of this; that there really are naked pictures of Trump held by the Russian security services. It is something that I would never think about, and would have a hard time believing under any rational circumstances. But Devin Nunes convinced me. By taking time in virtually every one of his nationally-televised-live speeches over the last three months to talk about "naked pictures of Donald Trump," Congressman Nunes -- the ranking member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence -- has convince me that there is something to that story. Which would also (as unlikely as it is) would do a lot to explain the otherwise inexplicable behavior of the Current Occupant.
How many other 'impeachable' offenses will the desperate Dems come up with in the next four years?
The real tell in all this is that the decision and effort to impeach happened way before the supposed crime. Imagine a criminal system that worked like that for all of us. If they can do it to the President, we are all at their mercy. Is there anything less American than that? The nation was founded specifically to create a place where people were protected from precisely this.
I wonder if Althouse will ever get to the point where the Democrats have lost her. It's disappointing that she has not gotten there long ago. That bothers me because she represents so many other Americans with the same blind spot. I talk with them, I work with them, and I often respect them, but people, c'mon. Let it go. That turd stinks. Stop carrying it around.
I'm watching the MI Trump rally right now. The guy isn't missing a beat. He's a long game guy, and sees the election coming in 11 months, and is already savoring what will likely be a landslide re-election. It's a little like the famous 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner when Obama mocked him- you could almost see the wheels turning in his head while he thought, "Just wait. You're going to be giving me the keys to the White House some day."
"So... they impeached the President. Have you heard?"
Couldn't watch. When I tried, the proceedings were dominated by Adam Schiff and I can't watch that snake. He's just been exposed and the democrats still trot him out as their spokesman? Incredible.
And I read that the House is not going to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate? But the country is supposed to take this seriously?
I guess we're supposed to have a lot of public discourse — commentary from pundits and jibber jabber from everybody — along with public opinion polls
It is another tag team opportunity. The House Democrats handed the baton to their media wing to run with it before sending it on to the Senate.
The media failed to finish Trump during the Schiff show, but hope to do better this time.
It is as tiresome and predictable as the inane Chuckles' drunken ramblings.
"LOL! Well, at least Trump has Putin defending him now."
That just means that Putin has more respect for what it means to be American than the Democrats do, which is no longer surprising.
Why has Chuck decided to attack Devin Nunes? Have you read the IG report yet, Chuck? Nunes' memo reporting the abuse of FISA by the FBI was accurate. Schiff's memo was a pack of lies.
Blogger stevew said...
If they don't send it to the Senate then Trump cannot be acquitted of impeachment. Perhaps they think no trial will be better for them than an acquittal.
I think this may well be the plan. She will see how it plays in the Media and in polls.
It's about RBG and the Grand Jury stuff as Bruce says.
Andrew McCabe is "shocked and horrified" at the FISA abuses.
McCabe: ""The biggest mistake we made. The biggest mistake, i think, is the process that was in place essentially left so much responsibility on the lowest level of FBI agents and supervisors involved in a process that once those mistakes are baked in they become very, very hard for the many, many layers of oversight to uncover. That's thing if I were Director Wray that I would focus on," McCabe said."
With Comey, and now McCabe, it is clear the defense they have settled on. Read the whole thing. It will make you very angry.
“The real tell in all this is that the decision and effort to impeach happened way before the supposed crime.”
Literally. They put the impeachment pieces into place right after the election of the new Dem House majority, and then just waited and waited for something to pop up that they could slit in and use to justify impeachment. But when didn’t appear after a half a year or so, HSCI chair Schifty and his Lawfare people fabricated the bogus “whistleblower” claim, and they were off to the races.
“McCabe: ""The biggest mistake we made. The biggest mistake, i think, is the process that was in place essentially left so much responsibility on the lowest level of FBI agents and supervisors involved in a process that once those mistakes are baked in they become very, very hard for the many, many layers of oversight to uncover. That's thing if I were Director Wray that I would focus on," McCabe said."”
McCabe is up to his eyeballs in this. He can’t play dumb here. He routinely met with Peter Strzok, maybe six levels below him, along with his attorney (and Strzok’s live interest) Lisa Page. He was probably the one orchestrating the corruption in the FBI. Maybe worse, he preapproved the first FISA warrant application, and subordinates involved admitted that his preapproval caused them to cut corners. And, don’t forget the $700k bribe his wife received from long time Clinton bag man, Terry McAwfull.
Kevin McCarthy's speech ending the debate in the House was excellent. One for the history books. Kevin McCarthy
Interesting argument over at CTH on the HJC lawsuits.
The "Obstruction" article may be designed to support that fishing expedition for Grand jury and Weissmann material to use as oppo material in the election campaign.
The other side of that argument is if McConnell convenes the Senate and votes down the impeachment, are the lawsuits moot?
Interesting times. Plus 90% of VA counties are now gun "sanctuaries." It's spreading to other blue states.
Chuck at 8:30 AM
By taking time in virtually every one of his nationally-televised-live speeches over the last three months to talk about "naked pictures of Donald Trump," Congressman Nunes -- the ranking member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence -- has convince me that there is something to that story.
Practically nobody will agree with that reasoning, Chuck.
Coming up next, stay tuned for the trial of the millennia.
Coming up next, stay tuned for the trial of the millennia.
Read the Constitution, Howard.
It is not a trial of Donald Trump. The Senate is charged with judging the Impeachment created by the House. It is is Article 1/Section 3.
mockturtle, it was just a speech, even if it was a rousing one. he should have whipped it out and pissed on the floor. symbolism is important. I think the Dems are withholding impeachment from the Senate because they're desperately looking for ways to make this show go longer, but I doubt there's some real legal jeopardy being hatched by the lawfare crew. Really seems like this is the anticlimactic climax of this whole sorry show.
Chuck doesn't appear to know that Nunes is referring to a spoof phone call in which Schiff thought he was going to receive the "naked Trump pictures" from a Russian.
There's a recording, Chuck.
You flamboyantly beseeched the Democrats not to do this. They have done it. What is your response to be? The same “cruel neutrality” followed by a vote for the Democrat that fooled no-one before? “This is awful, awful. Ah well here’s my vote anyway”? I think you put “cruel neutrality”, or at least your claim to it, on the line with your coming out post. Have the Democrats lost you? Or have they just called your bluff?
"A mistake by Trump that is going to stick. And cost Trump among some of his core/crossover voters in a crucial swing state that he only won by just 0.23% in 2016."
Let's put a pin in this one.
"McCabe is up to his eyeballs in this."
I suspect that the DOJ not prosecuting McCabe and Comey in their recent referrals may be Barr looking down the road and saying 'Let's not get distracted by the small stuff'.
Our top story tonight... Generalissimo Francisco D is still brain deadClause 6: Trial of Impeachment
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
"I think this may well be the plan. She will see how it plays in the Media and in polls."
Honestly, I don't think there's a plan. That's giving some folks way too much credit. Impeach in haste, repent at leisure.
Impeachment is a Christmas gift to the Democratic base, who have not really thought through what they wished for.
Next December their stockings will contain lumps of coal.
Could our Constitutional Law Professor hostess explain to us what the Senate's options are now regarding the gamesmanship by the House?
And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Thanks, Howard. I was unsure if a Democrat boycott of a Senate vote could work. Thanks to you I see it is "members present."
Our top story tonight... Generalissimo Francisco D is still brain deadClause 6: Trial of Impeachment
Howard,
I understand your intellectual limitations, but try to grasp the written word of the US Constitution.
Article 1/Section 2 states that the House has the sole Power of Impeachment. Moving on to Section 3, the Constitution states that the Senate has the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
The Constitution does not say that the Senate tries the impeached person. It tries the Impeachment that is created by the House.
In other words, it is not a fact finding trial of Donald Trump. That was the job that the House Democrats bungled. The Senate will rule on the impeachment findings presented by the House..
RE: not sending up the "impeachment". As someone keeps saying; If the Democrats could only not be crazy". It's true. Do they really think that they are going to push McConnell around? Do they really think that it doesn't undermine the "seriousness" of their charges that they are unwilling to send them to trial? Do they really think that as they screw around people aren't going to become more aware of the gross violations of Trumps civil and legal rights?
Look at this piece with Ig Horowitz testifying in a Senate committee. He destroys the pretense that there was no political bias by the people he investigated. The same is going to happen to Schiff and Nadler as time passes and people get a closer look at their work.
Give it up Francisco D.
“No person shall be convicted”. The impeached person is on trial, not the impeachment. You can have murder trials, but the murder is not on trial, nor is the charge on trial. The person is.
Beaten by Howard. Sad.
Beaten by Howard. Sad.
Sorry Ken.
You fail to understand the plain meaning of the Constitution as it explains the different roles of the Senate and the House. Perhaps, the language confuses you. The Senate is basically an Appeals Court. They do not convict. They can confirm the House articles which result in a conviction.
Ken B likes confrontation for some reason.
I watched Kevin McCarthy for a few minutes this morning. I have thought of him as a squish for years but he did a good job today. He pointed out that Nancy Pelosi would not take questions after her presser today. He took lots of hostile questions and handled them well.
The next step is up to McConnell now and he seems to be enjoying it. Nancy does not look happy.
This impeachment is like the Battle of the Bulge- a completely hopeless counter-attack, but with the difference that defeat can't even be delayed in this case.
I can see the bull sessions that went into this holding up of the articles of impeachment- they probably went like this:
Pelosi: "We are going to lose in the Senate. Maybe we shouldn't even play this game."
Tribe: "You just listen to me- we will just take the ball and hide it when the Senate's offense tries to take the field- that way they can't score, and we will win."
Pelosi: "Ok, that might work. However, what if the Senate has its own ball?"
Tribe: "Don't worry your pretty little head- I am a very, very smart guy- probably a lot smarter than any other person you know, including Cocaine Mitch McConnell."
I see many tweets that impeachment is a stain on Trump but is it? Was is a stain on Bill Clinton? I don't hear Democrats expressing shame for his impeachment. They feel it was a partisan effort. Same here.
I see many tweets that impeachment is a stain on Trump but is it? Was is a stain on Bill Clinton? I don't hear Democrats expressing shame for his impeachment.
It was Bill Clintons lasting stain on Monica Lewinsky's blue dress that provided key evidence for impeachment.
"...we will just take the ball and hide it when the Senate's offense tries to take the field- that way they can't score, and we will win."
I'm still a bit incredulous at this turn of events. What a farce.
The House impeached, is now obstructing the Senate (an impeachable offense, or so I'm told) and Trump is still President.
Next.
Why are we falling into the dem trap of claiming they've impeached the president?
Because that's what they did. Just like the House impeached Clinton.
Impeachment =/= removal from office ... just like Clinton.
Francisco D at 1152 says the senate does not convict on impeachments . And yet we have already quoted the constitution.
“And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”
Chuck most thoughtfully considered...
"Congressman Nunes -- the ranking member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence -- has convince me that there is something to that story."
--
Yes, Chuck. That "something" is Schitt recorded being duped by a couple of comedians due to his TDS. Shitt would prefer that story go away.
I hope the recording gets used in campaign ads under a bug-eyed pic of Schitt.
Francisco D at 1152 says the senate does not convict on impeachments . And yet we have already quoted the constitution.
“And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”
Ken,
Read the fucking Constitution Article 1.
I don't know if you are dumb or just stubborn. If you want to argue my point, discuss your quotes in context. You know how to do that, don't you?
It was not a bad night for Trump. The impeachment was a Democrat partisan exercise in malarkey, with no chance of Trump being removed by the Senate. It unites all of the Republicans behind him, as well as any fair-minded independents. And the ones who are most likely to regret last night's vote are the Democrats in swing districts.
I posted this on Facebook:
HUBRIS
12/18/2019
NEMESIS
11/3/2020
I think that sums it up.
Francisco D
You are making a basic error. You read the bit where it says the senate will try impeachments to mean that the article of impeachment is what is on trial, not the president. Several of us have cited the constitution disproving that explicitly. You also said the senate does not convict. Likewise we have cited the constitution to the contrary: it refers to persons being convicted.
Give it up. You misunderstood one passage and ignored the rest.
No witnesses for you, we gotta get this done!
No questions for you, we gotta get this done!
No period for investigation, we gotta gat this done!
No appeals to courts! That's an impeachable delay! We gotta get this done!
Now that it’s passed, I'm just gonna sit on this for a few months. No need for the senate to see it yet.
well one might argue whether the resolution was duly authorized, but yes there was peach mint,(a play on words some colleagues came up with)
Narcisco
What’s the argument it wasn’t duly authorized?
Several of us have cited the constitution disproving that explicitly.
You have not disproven anything Ken. You have not even tried to interpret the meaning of the Article 1 passages. You just read "conviction" and jumped to poorly informed conclusions.
I'm done with you because you have nothing of substance to offer in the discussion of Article 1.
Gabbard is thinking long term,as she has been from the start. She never expected to win. She is staking out ground for next time, or the time after that.
Two Dems to watch for the future: Sinema and Gabbard. The most attractive ones, not incidentally.
what happened with the so called moderates, like breaux, well he worked for Gazprom for a time, bob Kerrey is mostly in the wilderness, Lieberman is lobbying for zte,
The Russian asset isn't giving weight to the particles of peach mint.
Put the case on the Senate "docket."
Call the case on that date.
If no House prosecutors respond to present their case (because Pelosi hasn't appointed them or submitted the articles), then like any other court, they summarily dismiss for want of prosecution.
Francisco
For the third time here is the relevant part of article 1
“
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
“
It is clear that Persons can be tried and convicted. And, again, that *is* from article 1. What are you denying?
Post a Comment