Posted on 01/12/2020 10:29:29 AM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
Where does Article 2 Section 3 say anything about "last year?" If something important happened this year, I would expect to hear about it. Also, Dems passed the articles last year, so that process is occurring in multiple years.
Rudy gave a scenario where SCOTUS could basically negate the Trump impeachment — wipe it away, disappear it, etc., ****
I don’t think he meant during the trial in the senate.
He was talking about after Trump is acquitted or the case is dismissed.
Then the impeachment could be declared null and void because neither one of the Articles addressed any Constitutional crimes that are valid for impeachment.
So Roberts would have no say about that at the trial.
But he would if the dems fought the null and void decision and it came before the SCOTUS.
The SOTU is a stage, and the President likes to preform.
Look how many people will be watching. I would estimate 100 million. If not more.
One person who will be watching is the ayatollah Khomeini.
5.56mm
Perform.
Sheesh.
5.56mm
Bannon has a good point about delaying the SOTU speech until after the bogus trial is complete so he can beat the dems over the head with it until they are bloody and completely impotent. Then hit them again and again right on through the election.
Imagine winning so big in both houses it leaves the dems with no say in anything just like California has done to the republicans.
“He was talking about after Trump is acquitted or the case is dismissed.”
That could be. Rudy was on a roll, speaking fast, and I didn’t get it all. But it would be great if it ended with no impeachment for Trump.
Yes.
I’m pretty sure I got it right.
It is hard to follow him what with the way he talks fast and in somewhat broken sentences.
Maybe he watched too many Newhart shows years ago...
“said she was doing a great job that holding onto the articles would lead to witnesses and .........(wait for it).........”evidence.” Evidence? Did the House stupidly impeach a president without evidence?....
This is a very important point and one that should be emphasized. If they are looking for evidence at this stage of their games, they are in effect saying they had no evidence but impeached him anyway. By seeking more evidence at this point they undercut their own case.
On second thought, if Roberts were fair and up on the Constitution, I imagine he could rule at the trial that the Articles are null and void and declare that there was no impeachment of Trump.
Man the dems would hate that, but it is true they used NO crimes stated in the Constitution for impeachment.
This is a great opportunity for Trump to stick in their faces. I say proceed.
lately, I haven’t seen that much good advice for President Trump come from Bannon’s direction ...
I don’t see why President Trump needs to REACT to Nancy and alter his plans ... reaction is what Nancy and the Dems do ... leadership is what President Trump does ...
personally, I think it’d be great for President Trump to stand before Congress and rub the bogus impeachment in the faces of the Dems while the “trial” is underway ...
It sure is. The constitution says he has to do it from time to time. He can sure as hell CAN decide a couple of months from now is a better time.
“said she was doing a great job that holding onto the articles would lead to witnesses and .........(wait for it).........”evidence.” Evidence? Did the House stupidly impeach a president without evidence?....They covered this last nite on the Gutfeld show.
Nancy had said they need evidence of truth and facts so they need more witnesses at the Senate trial.
So she did in fact admit they used no truth and facts when voting on their bogus articles.
They really raked Pelosi over the coals on their show.
It may be repeated tonight, I'm not sure.
Bannon is right. Pelosi absolutely wants this BS hanging over Trump’s head when he delivers the address. It was always part of the plan The MSM will bring it up every every 5 minutes before and after the speech.
—
Impeachment is a stale topic. As stale as that Christmas fruitcake.
Like I said he can give congress a letter.
“On second thought, IF Roberts were fair...”
And IF Roberts were fair, Obamacare wouldn’t have passed.
And IF my aunt had a penis, she’d be my uncle.
Bolton will not be allowed to testify. He is not the decider of executive privilege.
Trump is correct in using EP to keep top security personnel from being witnesses.
The dems would ask questions designed to get info they would try to use to give to our enemies.
Top dems can not be trusted any more than Iran’s Ayotolla.
Don’t use posts to me to air your prurient issues.
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.