Posted on 11/21/2019 5:46:33 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Since Fisa abuse is part of this swirling mess and Roberts is head of the Fisa courts and since he had to know of the Fisa spy warrants against Trump, then Roberts may have to recuse and choose another Justice to preside in the Senate trial....
Heck... Mitch can argue that there is no mechanism in the constitution dealing with this possible conflict of interest on the part of the Judge, thus there can’t be a trial without replacement of the Chief Justice.
I’m surprised this has not been brought up but I intend to throw it out there!
You mean they only presented 4-5 days of witnesses before shutting down the hearings? They must have read the polls that they were losing badly the longer the hearings went on. As soon as the Republicans had a chance to cross-examine witnesses and make speeches rather than the closed-door #shampeachment “inquiry”, where they were intentionally shutout, the Dems have seen their polls tank.
At best, the Dems may get one conviction out of four but none of them are particularly major crimes. In fact, they’re all pretty much cases based on opinions rather than facts.
Okay, then he chooses Ginsburgh...
That would be Romney, and if I were Trump, I'd bury Romney with his connections to Burisma to prove his anti-corruption hunt is "bi-partisan". Romney will then vote to convict but, frankly, he's going to anyway. He relishes being the "new McCain".
No constitutional method to sort out recusal in this case...be interesting to watch how this plays out. If Roberts has to recuse then he can’t even choose who replaces him as that might still be seen as being tainted by his conflict of interest.
That’s entirely possible. I have been saying for a long time now that Trump knows the rope-a-dope better than anyone. It could be that he deliberately forced their hand. A lot of people have gone down underestimating him.
But, that would be some hell of a “3-D chess” move!
Still, the Dems and his haters have been relentless. Absurdly so. But that would also be what makes them good marks.
the dems have tried to impeach every republican president since Eisenhower, except for Ford...
“After this, Trump and his team take the field.”
I hope you are right. It is unfortunate that in the future Trump’s entire 1st term will be discussed in terms of the hoaxes. However, if your point comes true, then the hoaxes would be discussed in light of a significant “draining of the swamp” (i.e. Trump rooting out deep seated, institutionalized federal, demokrap corruption). BTW, I am not surprised that this concerted, institutional effort to get rid of Trump is happening - Machiavelli wrote well about what an outsider should expect to happen when power structures are threatened or lose power. Trump is the ultimate outsider. That has its strengths and its weaknesses.
On the other hand, conducting a trial would expose the illegal actions of more than a few of the denizens of The Swamp, but only if GOP leadership has the guts to do so ... which is an "if" of gargantuan proportion.
But on the other "other hand" a trial could also expose the duplicity of some members of the GOP caucus which, in reconsideration, would also be a good thing.
1. Contempt? All normal people hold Congress in Contempt.
2. Obstruction? President Trump is exercising his legal right to appeal to the courts before responding to Schiff's clearly politicized demands, and these appeals are a fundamental legal right, not obstruction of justice.
3. Bribery and abuse of power depend on whether the requested investigation was justified by at least some legal standard (clear and convincing evidence? probable cause?), and whether there was undue pressure exerted. Given probable cause, proving corruption fully justifies substantial pressure to investigate. Even prompted by mere rumors, a request without pressure is neither bribery nor an abuse of power. In any case, a full investigation of Baby Biden is essential to determining the merits of these two charges.
Bring it on! I'm more than okay with following the evidence. Let's find out whether President Trump was gathering dirt on a political opponent or investigating corruption as required by law.
You watch. The senate trial won’t lay a hand on the Democrats.
A charge of “...contempt of Congress”...?
But doesn’t every sane American have “contempt of Congress?
Here are the four:
1. Orange Man Bad.
2. Orange Man really Bad.
3. Orange Man really really Bad.
4. Orange Man really really really Bad.
THis is what i really dont get.
What are the 4 articles of impeachment?
They wanted to do five, but even Shifty thought Orange Man really, really, really, really Bad was a bit too much.
You are spot on with Mitch. He'll prove to be a backstabbing SOB to protect all the GOP types that have been wetting their beaks in the foreign aid monies. He's one of my senators and a worthless POS. I've never voted for him even though I vote for all other republicans.
Contempt of Congress is an impeachable offense?
Can they impeach a voter?
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.