[BigSteve]

And this is simply wrong. They already have proved their case. Trump has admitted it. Over 500 scholars have asserted it. In addition to these charges there are dozens more that could be brought. Mitch McConnell has as much as admitted it when he admitted that he was unable to be impartial and did not expect or wish his fellow senators to be impartial. This in the face of his being required to take an oath to be impartial.

Well, perhaps you should consider that the impeachment hearings were hardly impartial before you start your whining about the trial.

Again, the democrats are the ones who'll suffer for this.

Fuck them...

[Stormsmith]

Well since McConnell announced to the press he'd rig the trial that, theoretically, gave Speaker Pelesi the need to hold up the proceedings, she'd consider her options. meanwhile the investigations continue and will include Vice President Pence. President Trump's risking having no end of dirty secrets proven and publicised. If he's played silly beggars with Stormy Daniels they'll charge him. Its vertually a done deal: both the women will probably testify, as will Cohen. If he's done stupid stuff with Lev Parnas and/or Igor Fruman, they'll likely testify. Ditto Mike Flynn, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos, and Paul Manafort. And so on.

Speaker Pelosi can appeal to a judge for the releasement of documents, even the super secret server.

Cy Vance is still investigating too

And they still could and probably are using the Mueller papers.

So Steve, this would make him the most impeached president.

Nixon was facing 6 counts for impeachment. When the constituents in the Nixon case had heard enough, they let Washington insiders know. The releasing of the tapes and papers was the finishing blow: the GOP told President Nixon they couldn't support him. And President Nixon quit before being impeached. But it's too late for President Trump. I'll add that Nixon won by a landslide. Trump did not. Also a lot of voters stayed home, and between the above stuff and the kidnapping of kids plus the ill treatment of them et al, will add to the senatorial cacophony.

[Istanbuller]

He isn't impeached because House Democrats do not transmit the documents to The Senate. This is some kind of a political game.

There won't be removal from the office. Impeachment process will last in a minute in The Senate.

[Stormsmith]

He is impeached, on two counts, full stop.

He won't be kicked out of office until the senate says so. The Democrats won't turn over the papers until the senate consents to holding a fair trial.

[Istanbuller]

It won't happen until she transmit the documents and Senate decides. Probably House Speaker played all her cards and her game just sink. Her political career might already come to an end.

Further, this will give Republican lawmakers to have a leverage on Trump. This will unite The Republican Party more.

[late]

1) It won't happen until she transmit the documents and Senate decides.

2) Probably House Speaker played all her cards and her game just sink.

3) Her political career might already come to an end.

4) Further, this will give Republican lawmakers to have a leverage on Trump. This will unite The Republican Party more.

1) Trump has already been impeached. The next step is like a jury trial, but in the Senate. Pelosi is not sending the Resolution to the Senate because she wants a fair trial.

2) That is entirely possible.

3) Nope, there isn't a chance she would lose an election, and there is nobody among the Dems that could do the job half as well. Her position is even more secure than it was.

4) I think you have that backwards. Trump clearly hates this, and he is going to put a lot of pressure on the Senate to get this over with. Privately, a lot of Republicans hate this and loathe Trump. This will drive Republicans apart, but whether it's a small amount or a large amount, I cannot say.

[noemon]

Apparently the Republican Senate wants to do a trial without witnesses and without witness statements either.

[late]

Apparently the Republican Senate wants to do a trial without witnesses and without witness statements either.

"This impeachment trial is becoming like a Jim Crow trial. Deep down everyone knows everything. Everyone knows the racist defendant is guilty. Everyone knows the all-White jury is going to quickly acquit. Everyone knows the exonerated defendant will continue to break the law."
Prof Kendi

[Finfinder]

@late @Drlee @Stormsmith


Noah Feldam was one of the partisan Democrat law professors Jerry Nadler had testify in congress. He also is one of the law scholars Drlee and Late keep claiming as evidence to impeach president Trump. The Democrats are now going to turn their back on this guy. I can't wait to hear the POFO excuses on this one.

A Law Professor’s Provocative Argument: Trump Has Not Yet Been Impeached

Adam Liptak
By Adam Liptak
Dec. 20, 2019

WASHINGTON — Maybe President Trump has not been impeached after all, or at least not yet.

Impeachment happens, according to Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor, only when the House transmits the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

So “technically speaking,” he said, “the president still hasn’t been impeached.”

That idea has left much of the legal academy unconvinced, including Laurence H. Tribe, one of Professor Feldman’s colleagues at Harvard. “The argument is textually bizarre, historically inaccurate, structurally misguided and functionally misleading,” Professor Tribe said.

Professor Feldman was one of three constitutional scholars to testify in favor of impeachment before the House Judiciary Committee this month. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and the sole scholar invited by Republicans to testify against impeachment at that hearing, also disagreed with Professor Feldman.

Mr. Trump was impeached on Wednesday, Professor Turley said. “Article I, Section 2 says that the House ‘shall have the sole power of impeachment.’ It says nothing about a requirement of referral to complete that act.”

Sign Up for the Morning Briefing
Get what you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox.

SIGN UP
The question of precisely when impeachment happens would ordinarily be of interest to almost no one. But it has taken on at least symbolic weight given Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statement that the House may not transmit the articles of impeachment until it is satisfied that the Senate will conduct a fair trial.

Professor Feldman set out his views in a Bloomberg Opinion article on Thursday and elaborated on them in an interview. History supported his position, he said, as the framers of the Constitution drew on English procedures under which the House of Commons brought charges of impeachment to the House of Lords.

Unlock more free articles.
Create an account or log in
“The act known as impeachment was an act that took place in the upper house when people from the lower house appeared at the bar of that other house and said, ‘We hereby impeach so-and-so for high crimes and misdemeanors,’” Professor Feldman said.

He added that the term itself supported his view.

“If you think of the other meanings of the word ‘impeach’ — impeaching the credibility of a witness, for instance — it happens when you are looking at a person and saying ‘you have done wrong,’” Professor Feldman said. “You’re impeaching their character, you’re impeaching their credibility. That’s an act that you do in the forum where the decision will be made.”

But impeachment is functionally similar to a criminal indictment, and few people would say a grand jury had not indicted someone after voting to do so even if no trial followed. But Professor Feldman said that was a poor analogy.

Editors’ Picks

The Decade in Retirement: Wealthy Americans Moved Further Ahead

‘I Was Walking Home After Enjoying One Too Many Aperol Spritzes’

A Lonely Plea: ‘Anybody Need a Grandma for Christmas?’
The Constitution itself is terse. As Professor Turley noted, it gives the House “the sole power of impeachment,” which suggests that the House may also decide when it has impeached the president. The Senate, by contrast, is granted “the sole power to try all impeachments.”

In his article, Professor Feldman wrote that “the constitutional logic of impeachment” requires the House to transmit the articles before the president can be said to have been impeached. “A president who has been genuinely impeached,” he wrote, “must constitutionally have the right to defend himself before the Senate.”

Professors Feldman and Tribe used the same thought experiment to come to opposite conclusions on the question of when impeachment happens. Suppose, they said, that President Richard M. Nixon had not resigned in the face of pending impeachment, as he did, but after the House voted for articles of impeachment and before transmitting them to the Senate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/t ... peach.html

[BigSteve]

"This impeachment trial is becoming like a Jim Crow trial. Deep down everyone knows everything. Everyone knows the racist defendant is guilty. Everyone knows the all-White jury is going to quickly acquit. Everyone knows the exonerated defendant will continue to break the law."
Prof Kendi

Why on earth would anyone find his opinion noteworthy?

[late]

Why on earth would anyone find his opinion noteworthy?

Perhaps because it's apt, profound, and damning.

[late]

That idea has left much of the legal academy unconvinced, including Laurence H. Tribe, one of Professor Feldman’s colleagues at Harvard. “The argument is textually bizarre, historically inaccurate, structurally misguided and functionally misleading,” Professor Tribe said.

What he said..

Love your delusions, no idea whatsoever why I should care.

[blackjack21]

3) Nope, there isn't a chance she would lose an election, and there is nobody among the Dems that could do the job half as well. Her position is even more secure than it was.

Her seat is safe. Her position as Speaker isn't safe, particularly if she loses the majority again. She will be the only Speaker of the House in US History to have lost the majority twice.

Apparently the Republican Senate wants to do a trial without witnesses and without witness statements either.

That is principally because it is a waste of time. The complaint fails to state a case upon which relief can be granted. Trial courts just dismiss cases like this. Trump wants to call witnesses, too. However, the case can be disposed with a motion to dismiss on so many grounds, that a trial is completely pointless.

Perhaps because it's apt, profound, and damning.

Charging someone with something that isn't a crime doesn't even compare remotely to jury nullification in the Jim Crow South. This impeachment is more like charging a black man with walking down the street with a pimp roll and further charging him with prostitution racketeering without any more evidence than walking with a pimp roll, which itself isn't a crime. The whole thing makes no sense at all.

[jimjam]

“The senators who never gave Merrick Garland a vote and who’ve been cranking through the confirmation of unqualified judges can’t find enough smelling salts and fainting couches when Pelosi plays a little hardball on an impeachment trial,” Representative Jim Himes, Democrat of Connecticut, said on Twitter on Thursday.

[late]

Charging someone with something that isn't a crime

President can't be charged with a crime. You know that, I tell you that every day.

So you know it's false, and that impeachment is about High Crimes, to which Trump is guilty as hell. You know that, too.

[Drlee]

The thing is @late is that he could have been charged with recognizable crimes, such as extortion, simply by calling it that. Instead of obstruction of congress he could have been charged with obstruction of justice. Not because these crimes would stick to him but because the people know what they mean. IMO it was a huge mistake not to call a spade a spade.

I have come to the conclusion that the democrats are being held hostage. Somebody has something on them which is why this who debacle is playing out the way it is. For all the world this looks like a Mexican standoff. Or worse, that a third party is pulling the strings on both sides.

Why do I say this?

1. There is no reason for McConnell to compromise himself during a tough reelection campaign by his outrageous handling of the republican side in the Senate unless he is deliberately giving Pelosi a way out. That means he is frightened of something.

2. My guess is that in addition to the idiotic "charges" that were voted upon, the democrats may have found something really important and do not know how to handle it. Perhaps it is the republicans who have found something and that is what is making the current process unpalatable. Or Putin has them all by the short hairs.

There are a lot of choices that Pelosi could make but this one may be the very best. She has every reason in the world to refuse to send the articles of impeachment until McConnell agrees to a "fair" trial. He won't. Stalemate and everyone wins. From the democratic perspective Trump is somewhat compromised because he is "under charges" and has to tread carefully. From the Republican perspective they look strong in the face of weak charges.

There is a very dark side to this and I am virtually certain we will never know what it is. I know this. McConnell is shit scared of something really important and my guess is that it does not involve Trump. It involves himself or maybe Pence.

[Istanbuller]

1) Trump has already been impeached. The next step is like a jury trial, but in the Senate. Pelosi is not sending the Resolution to the Senate because she wants a fair trial.

2) That is entirely possible.

3) Nope, there isn't a chance she would lose an election, and there is nobody among the Dems that could do the job half as well. Her position is even more secure than it was.

4) I think you have that backwards. Trump clearly hates this, and he is going to put a lot of pressure on the Senate to get this over with. Privately, a lot of Republicans hate this and loathe Trump. This will drive Republicans apart, but whether it's a small amount or a large amount, I cannot say.

Trump is not impeached. It was just a phony impeachment vote. It was a very dumb political move.

House Speaker is done. Nobody will take her seriously again.

She might be also violating US Constitution. She is trying to bar The Senate from having a say on the phony impeachment process.

You will hear from Trump supporters "Lock her (House Speaker) up" chants. House Speaker is becoming a criminal. And this is energizing Trump base.

Sorry but you are all fucked, my friend. This time Trump will fuck all of you.

There is a very dark side to this and I am virtually certain we will never know what it is. I know this. McConnell is shit scared of something really important and my guess is that it does not involve Trump. It involves himself or maybe Pence.

Your anti-Trump beliefs hold you from understanding reality. McConnell and all other Republican Senators have no chance of getting reelected if they vote to impeach Trump. This is simple as that. Republican Party is all about Trump.

[late]

The thing is @late is that he could have been charged with recognizable crimes, such as extortion, simply by calling it that. Instead of obstruction of congress he could have been charged with obstruction of justice. Not because these crimes would stick to him but because the people know what they mean. IMO it was a huge mistake not to call a spade a spade.

I have come to the conclusion that the democrats are being held hostage. Somebody has something on them which is why this who debacle is playing out the way it is. For all the world this looks like a Mexican standoff. Or worse, that a third party is pulling the strings on both sides.

Why do I say this?

1. There is no reason for McConnell to compromise himself during a tough reelection campaign by his outrageous handling of the republican side in the Senate unless he is deliberately giving Pelosi a way out. That means he is frightened of something.

2. My guess is that in addition to the idiotic "charges" that were voted upon, the democrats may have found something really important and do not know how to handle it. Perhaps it is the republicans who have found something and that is what is making the current process unpalatable. Or Putin has them all by the short hairs.

There are a lot of choices that Pelosi could make but this one may be the very best. She has every reason in the world to refuse to send the articles of impeachment until McConnell agrees to a "fair" trial. He won't. Stalemate and everyone wins. From the democratic perspective Trump is somewhat compromised because he is "under charges" and has to tread carefully. From the Republican perspective they look strong in the face of weak charges.

There is a very dark side to this and I am virtually certain we will never know what it is. I know this. McConnell is shit scared of something really important and my guess is that it does not involve Trump. It involves himself or maybe Pence.

[Istanbuller]

Why does House Speaker refuse transmitting the documents?

Dumb politician realizes that phony House vote is meaningless and not enough to impeach a President. She was probably fooled by far leftists.

[Drlee]

Why does House Speaker refuse transmitting the documents?

Dumb politician realizes that phony House vote is meaningless and not enough to impeach a President. She was probably fooled by far leftists.

If you read the last several posts you will see why.

We have already noted your hatred of the US for years now and we know that you are exultant over our difficulties. Do try to refrain from lecturing us on a political process about which you know very little.