Trump lawyers respond to articles of impeachment: 'Constitutionally invalid'

Fox News ^ | January 18, 2020 | Marisa Schultz

[Texan4Life]

I watched all I could stomach today, about an hour's worth. I've never seen so many Power Points fill up my TV screen before! The Dem's insertion of their Power Point slides was so seamless. I was was expecting some sick porn to show up by accident though. All the Dems really needed to show over and over again, to sum up their argument, was just one Power Point : ORANGE MAN BAD Conservative Talk Show host Mark Levin's summary, of what he could have argued before the Senate today, touched on this point, that there was no mention of (a) Treason, (b) Bribery, or (c) High Crimes or Misdemeanors (that is crimes or misdemeanors as serious as, Treason, or Bribery), just some charges that the Dems made up that *do not* fit the Constitutional definition. www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E1mOkNohl8

[enumerated]

“Power Point slides”

They thought they were so clever with their PowerPoints - all the Democrats did today was insult a lot of Senators and bore them to death.

[i_robot73]

>
SCOTUS needs to reinforce the clear language of Article II sec 4 to NEGATE the Houses’s foolish impeachment......it is clearly unconstitutional and illegitimate.
>

S-U-R-E.

Right after they fark (again) the clear English of the 2nd A. (’...shall NOT be infringed.’), the 14th A. (’...AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof...’), as they skip to STEP 20 (like Congress’ ‘ability to tax’ via ACA) instead of beginning @ #1 (by WHAT authority??)...

[Liz]

SCOTUS needs to reinforce the clear language of Article II sec 4 to NEGATE the Houses’s unconstitutional and illegitimate impeachment.....
......AFTER TRUMP IS ACQUITTED....NOT BEFORE.......

[Liz]

[GOPJ]

LOL - good one Liz.

[i_robot73]

>
SCOTUS needs to reinforce the clear language of Article II sec 4 to NEGATE the Houses’s unconstitutional and illegitimate impeachment.....
......AFTER TRUMP IS ACQUITTED....NOT BEFORE.......
>

R-I-G-H-T. Just as much as SCOTUS reinforced the clear lang of the 2nd A.?? I mean, the late, “great” Scalia wrote: “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. Odd he never mentions those last 4 words of the 2nd, let alone the ‘voices’ of our Founders/History (unless it’s precedence [starting > Step1 to bolster their foredrawn conclusion])

I wouldn’t trust SCOTUS (nor govt as a whole), w/ their endless flowerly B.S. legalese to make simpler the plain English of the Constitution.