Posted on 01/25/2020 7:08:16 AM PST by EyesOfTX
laplata, I forgot I’ve got you on my “No Fly Zone” list, so I shouldn’t have responded to you like you were a normal reasonable person.
Go away.
Good. Fly around me. Lol
Bye Creep.
Bye one who uses little child responses. You’ll grow up one day.
I complimented you and then disagreed with you and you act this way. I’m glad I’m in your no fly zone.
Actually four members of President Trump’s defense team in their 2 hour presentation showed that the Democrat impeachment team hid evidence. The Democrats also gave false testimony. Why would the Democrats do that ? Why did they hide evidence, why didn’t they release the testimony of the “whistleblower? Why did they hide the testimony of Mr. Atkinson? The Democrat impeachment team presented their case in 23 hours so lack of time is not a credible excuse.
I disagree. that validates the impeachment.
what ‘crime’ are they voting on? how do you acquit someone for not a crime?
Excuse me. YOU’RE the one that lashed out with “Use your brain” - an elementary school response if I’ve ever heard one.
I have an argument against your half-baked response but as I said, my past encounters with you have shown you to be a sniper, unreasonable and not a good-faith debater. I cannot and will not try to have a reasonable discussion with someone like you who is unreasonable and not accountable.
Go away.
I’m flying around.
The very best long term news about all this Democrat posturing & lying & Impeachment farce is that EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE HOUSE WILL HAVE TO STAND FOR ELECTION AGAIN THIS NOVEMBER-—every
one SCHIFF NADLER PELOSI ALL OF THEM NO EXCEPTIONS.
Exactly - buzz off.
While it's true that President Trump retains all of his Constitutional rights, this isn't a real trial. The right to face accusers and call witnesses only constitutionally applies to 6th amendment criminal trials, which impeachment is not (Article III Section 2 also excludes impeachment from trial by jury).
The Constitution says that the Senate is the SOLE power to try impeachment, and that the Senate has the power to make its own rules.
-PJ
“By not dismissing this nonsense right away, the GOP has effectively legitimized this travesty”
Exactly. They could’ve submitted a detailed written response covering everything they discussed today. Then say, “Based on the facts in this document, the case is dismissed.”
Acquit means “not guilty”.
What’s wrong with that?
Not guilty of what? There is no crime in the articles.
And technically what they’ve accused him of is just doing his job. And he is doing his job, so is he ‘guilty’ of that?
I would much rather they declare them null and void so Trump can claim he was not impeached.
I do understand your rationale - that having a trial lends legitimacy to the impeachment, whereas dismissal allows him to say he wasn’t really impeached.
But you could make the opposite argument - that an early dismissal allows the prosecution to say “so he was guilty but his fellow Republicans let him off the hook on a technicality, just because they had the majority” - whereas a full trial would allow the people to hear the defense explain why the Democrats failed to make a case for impeachment.
I can see the merits of both strategies, but I favor the latter - I think they are doing the right thing going for an early dismissal.
I think that’s where you’re missing my point. I don’t think they should have a trial and acquittal, I don’t think it should be dismissed, both of those options legitimize what they sent over.
What I think they should do is declare it null and void since it does not actually contain any crimes, and so it does not meet constitutional requirements.
Effectively send it back and say “what is this crap”?
Oh, I thought declaring it null and void was the same as dismissal - so I guess I did misunderstand.
Yeah. I guess if enough Senators agree with you, that could work.
My thought that’s similar is that the states should amend the impeachment clause to require 2/3 n the House, just like it already is in the Senate.
That would prevent sham political impeachments like this from ever getting off the ground.
Thank you, it was nice to finally have a discussion and come to a conclusion without someone calling me an asshole. (Which I are not!)
Yes that was exactly my point.
There is:
Acquittal (saying he didn’t do it)
Dismissal (saying there is not enough to prove he did do it)
and (my preferred option)- declare it null and void - since all they are claiming he did was his job.
So, How would you say he didn’t do his job? Or how would you say there is not enough evidence that he was doing his job?
He clearly IS doing his job (that’s what they are trying to stop)
So... Declare them as deficient and toss them out as not a valid impeachment.
Pelosi wants to say “he’s forever impeached” but that would allow him to say “No I wasn’t, they were tossed out, because they were so stupid. See how stupid you are?”
History can argue it forever from that point, but he wont be “the 3rd president to be impeached” he will be “the first president to have them tossed out as ridiculous”
They are trying to convict him of DOING HIS JOB.
“So... Declare them as deficient and toss them out as not a valid impeachment.”
The Senate not only needs to judge that the articles are deficient and invalid.
The Senate Republicans also needs to condemn the Democrat leaders in the House, and judge them as reckless and incompetent, and tell them if they ever pull a stunt like this again they will be the ones being impeached.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.