Posted on 01/18/2020 2:59:24 PM PST by jazusamo
This was the argument raised in Federalist 65. That partisanship would be the victor over conscience and morality for the good of the country.
Oh, my. Trump testifying in front of the whole country. Now that’s a delicious thought.
Any politics in overturning 50 or 60 million votes in electing a president is projectile vomit unacceptable.
No crime listed in the articles. Bill Clinton impeachment articles listed 11 felonies. One is not like the other. One is not constitutional. Duh.
Not only is it Invalid, it is By Definition an ACT OF TREASON and multiple Senators should be Demanding Charges on the Senate Floor of TREASON for Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler...
Use it against them. Reexamine all the witnesses Trump’s counsel was unable to cross-examine in the basement, in public and above ground with an opportunity to confront them. Then call the defense witnesses they fear most, Blowy, Schiff, the Intel IG, Hunter, Quid Pro Joe, and Giuliani’s Ukrainian witnesses flown in. They want a trial with witnesses? Give them it, and let Crazy Bernie, Fauxcohantes and the other candidate in the Senate, whatsername, squirm and writhe in frustration at a thoroughgoing trial that: 1. discredits their whole case in the light of day, and 2. eclipses the Primaries that are nothing but mediocrity on parade anyway.
Our oldest daughter sings this really good.Someofbitches
Hit Me With Your Best Shot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JRgHol94Xc
Article II Sec 4 clearly states....... "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"......none of which are delineated in the House articles.
......it seems highly unlikely that the President will be convicted. However, due to the idiocy of Pelosi, we are at a point where the 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. hat tip ETCM
>The SCOTUS has no authority to “throw out” an impeachment.
By judicial review they can call any legislative process unconstitutional. If there’s no applicable criminal statue cited in the impeachment articles, then that could clearly violate the dictates that there be “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
That wasn't the case for Johnson or Clinton either.
How so? The Supreme Court hasn't even been involved up to this point........What am I missing here?
No. There are some rules that must be followed.
They have standing now as this trial part requires the impeached the right of legal defense. The Dems refused to allow POTUS or his team any role, so they would have just been spitting into the wind. Here, their assertions must be answered.
"...Originally, the criteria for impeachment included maladministration, malpractice and other vague, open-ended terms.
"[James] Madison opposed them, saying that open-ended terms could turn our republic into a parliamentary democracy where the president serves at the will of Congress. The framers of the Constitution didn't want that. And so, they restricted it to these four criteria and I don't think these criteria are met by the two articles of impeachment ..."
Until I hear something more authoritative-- this impeachment is nothing more than what one would expect from a coup attempt in a banana republic.
“Why did Trump’s lawyers wait for the Articles of Impeachment to cry constitutional foul? “
Anything said by the White House prior to this moment has been unofficial commentary. This statement is an official response to the articles of impeachment - their opening statement - and as such it very encouraging.
Significantly, the White House lawyers are completely ignoring the substance (or lack thereof) of the Democrats’ case, and launching a counterattack instead. They accusing the Democrats of abusing the impeachment clause of the Constitution in an attempt to overturn the 2016 election and influence the 2020 one.
By characterizing the impeachment in this way, they are formally linking impeachment with the ongoing coup attempt against this President, and signaling that EVERYTHING is on the table for discussion.
No they don't. It's fruit of the poisonous tree.
...except that the analysis of this unconstitutional and illegal investigation from day one is what could have/should have influenced the Senate to order a directed verdict because from day one there was no reasonable suspicion nor probable cause and there continues to be no genuine dispute of a material fact.
Seditious Conspiracy by the democrats should lead to a marshal law roundup. Lockup the enemies within and then sort it out.
That was clearly true. In a court of law this would be thrown out immediately.
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.