Uniparty bungled a fairly large point. Article 1, Section 3 of the US constitution requires that the impeachment of a US president requires that the chief justice of SCOTUS to preside over the trial in the senate.
Because of the misheld trial, any punishment, whether "removal" or barring from office doesn't really stick. Trump would need only appeal any punishment because of the misheld trial.
They have to pick, though. Are they impeaching a private citizen, or the President? They can't have it both ways, and both ways by themselves declaw the impeachment.
No, it doesn't. Already discussed here and I also posted links to SCOTUS blog on the matter of impeachment. ANYONE can be presiding "judge", even YOU, IF SENATE elects to do so. SENATE, and ONLY Senate is the one setting rules for impeachment. and the role of a presiding judge is simply as an observer. As was proven this week when Leahy woke up from his drunken stupor to "rule", only to be easily overriden by Senate panel when his rule turned out to be as crooked as they all are.
Is it traditional for SCOTUS judge to preside? Sure. But doesn't trump the Senate rules on impeachment and installing anyone they feel like inseatd.
Stop posting BS. Better spend the 5 minutes to educate yourself on the matter.
Since there weren't ever exceptions to Senate doing something right and the Constitution simply posted to that effect. Read the SCOTUS blog on the issue, SCOTUS says SENATE can appoint anyone SINCE IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO RESIDES. The role is purely as an OBSERVER, and noting else.
Its getting tiring posting FACTS and having all the legends still stick to their guns. READ THE FRIGGING SCOTUS BLOG. And then SENATE IMPEACHMENT RULES. Very clear explanation, just 5 minutes of your time. Instead of wasting your time on the keyboard.
No, SCOTUS simply described ONE option of impeachment. Since no one before went against it. BUT SENATE RULES allow ANYONE to PRESIDE save for the sitting VP since said VP may have to be the deciding vote in case of a 66-36 break and has a "vested" interest to be the 67th. The role is an OBSERVER IN ANY CASE, the person has absolutely no ability to interfere, nor rule, bathroom breaks are allowed and being awake is optional.
READ THE FUCKING RULES!!! Even SCOTUS BLOG SAYS AS MUCH.
This board has become a safe heaven for every uneducated and uninformed retard lately.
I am assuming this is the SCOTUS blog you are talking about? If so, this is hardly an authoritative source. Especially when the piece listed on the website is written by just some ho-hum law professor, who is not at all a definitive source on how the letter of the law need be interpreted.
The argument that Senate rules trump the constitution is laughable. That could very easily just mean that the Senate could strip you of every right you had, without due process.
You accuse me of peddling bullshit, but the letter of the law is clear, the impeachment trial needed Justice Roberts to preside.
One thing I found interesting with the peachmints was the constant goading and baiting by the dems and rinos about election fraud, stolen election etc.
They repeatedly called it the big lie, baseless claims and that all his cases were "demolished" in (I forget how many they cited) court cases, which we know is absolutely false.
His defence team didn't really respond to those remarks, in fact I was surprised they didn't.
Then I wondered if there was a reason for this. I think it threw the dems that they stuck to the incitement accusation.
I think the election fraud issues are still to come,
I also loved the reference to HRC with 'lock her up', basically saying if they impeach Trump it sets a precedent to go after Hillary. Did you see them squirm?
Yeah, I think Trumps team must know exactly what they are doing. They essentially had 16 hours to say whatever the hell they wanted, but only chose to use 3. I mean hell, they could've at least played the Pillow Man doc.
What struck me as odd is that I didn't hear Trumps team correct Raskin when he said that 61? cases of voter fraud were thrown out of court.
I would have thought at the very least they would have made it known that in most of those cases, the court refused to look at the evidence. (If that claim is true)
Like I said, I think they were goading his team into discussing election fraud claims and they didn't rise to it. They tried over and over and there's enough evidence available to explain why 'the mob' was so pissed but they didn't rise to it.
This is a brilliant observation. The possible reasons why they wouldn't jump into it are exciting(5d-chess?).
Anyway, you should make a main thread pointing this out if there isnt one already. It will likely 'pop the bubble' of some doomers and bring them back to hopium.
Funny. When I pointed out in a few threads over the past 3 weeks that the ONLY charge Trump's team will be fighting is "incitement for insurrection" I got plenty of down votes with all the legends here claiming I have no idea what I am saying. "Because Trump will simply present all the voter fraud and then roll into WH by next week."
How the times have changed... Still strange how so many here never do even rudimentary analysis of a situation, but are quick on the trigger, err, keyboard.
Won't mean anything. They still impeached a civilian. He is not currently sworn in as President so if it were reversed, it wouldn't apply to an after the fact swearing in.
Who says he isn't sworn. He swore in the first time and if you never left office your oath stands, however if you don't like that they could do it in secret so this shit.could play out under the watchful protection of the u.s. military and a real.president with the football keeping China at bay.
War.
FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING THAT COMES AFTER.
Uniparty bungled a fairly large point. Article 1, Section 3 of the US constitution requires that the impeachment of a US president requires that the chief justice of SCOTUS to preside over the trial in the senate.
Because of the misheld trial, any punishment, whether "removal" or barring from office doesn't really stick. Trump would need only appeal any punishment because of the misheld trial.
I found this article when looking into the Chief Justice argument
They have to pick, though. Are they impeaching a private citizen, or the President? They can't have it both ways, and both ways by themselves declaw the impeachment.
No, it doesn't. Already discussed here and I also posted links to SCOTUS blog on the matter of impeachment. ANYONE can be presiding "judge", even YOU, IF SENATE elects to do so. SENATE, and ONLY Senate is the one setting rules for impeachment. and the role of a presiding judge is simply as an observer. As was proven this week when Leahy woke up from his drunken stupor to "rule", only to be easily overriden by Senate panel when his rule turned out to be as crooked as they all are.
Is it traditional for SCOTUS judge to preside? Sure. But doesn't trump the Senate rules on impeachment and installing anyone they feel like inseatd.
Stop posting BS. Better spend the 5 minutes to educate yourself on the matter.
Since there weren't ever exceptions to Senate doing something right and the Constitution simply posted to that effect. Read the SCOTUS blog on the issue, SCOTUS says SENATE can appoint anyone SINCE IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO RESIDES. The role is purely as an OBSERVER, and noting else.
Its getting tiring posting FACTS and having all the legends still stick to their guns. READ THE FRIGGING SCOTUS BLOG. And then SENATE IMPEACHMENT RULES. Very clear explanation, just 5 minutes of your time. Instead of wasting your time on the keyboard.
No, SCOTUS simply described ONE option of impeachment. Since no one before went against it. BUT SENATE RULES allow ANYONE to PRESIDE save for the sitting VP since said VP may have to be the deciding vote in case of a 66-36 break and has a "vested" interest to be the 67th. The role is an OBSERVER IN ANY CASE, the person has absolutely no ability to interfere, nor rule, bathroom breaks are allowed and being awake is optional.
READ THE FUCKING RULES!!! Even SCOTUS BLOG SAYS AS MUCH.
This board has become a safe heaven for every uneducated and uninformed retard lately.
I am assuming this is the SCOTUS blog you are talking about? If so, this is hardly an authoritative source. Especially when the piece listed on the website is written by just some ho-hum law professor, who is not at all a definitive source on how the letter of the law need be interpreted. The argument that Senate rules trump the constitution is laughable. That could very easily just mean that the Senate could strip you of every right you had, without due process. You accuse me of peddling bullshit, but the letter of the law is clear, the impeachment trial needed Justice Roberts to preside.
One thing I found interesting with the peachmints was the constant goading and baiting by the dems and rinos about election fraud, stolen election etc.
They repeatedly called it the big lie, baseless claims and that all his cases were "demolished" in (I forget how many they cited) court cases, which we know is absolutely false.
His defence team didn't really respond to those remarks, in fact I was surprised they didn't.
Then I wondered if there was a reason for this. I think it threw the dems that they stuck to the incitement accusation.
I think the election fraud issues are still to come,
I also loved the reference to HRC with 'lock her up', basically saying if they impeach Trump it sets a precedent to go after Hillary. Did you see them squirm?
Yeah, I think Trumps team must know exactly what they are doing. They essentially had 16 hours to say whatever the hell they wanted, but only chose to use 3. I mean hell, they could've at least played the Pillow Man doc.
What struck me as odd is that I didn't hear Trumps team correct Raskin when he said that 61? cases of voter fraud were thrown out of court.
I would have thought at the very least they would have made it known that in most of those cases, the court refused to look at the evidence. (If that claim is true)
Like I said, I think they were goading his team into discussing election fraud claims and they didn't rise to it. They tried over and over and there's enough evidence available to explain why 'the mob' was so pissed but they didn't rise to it.
This is a brilliant observation. The possible reasons why they wouldn't jump into it are exciting(5d-chess?). Anyway, you should make a main thread pointing this out if there isnt one already. It will likely 'pop the bubble' of some doomers and bring them back to hopium.
LOL, this hopium stuff is like a drug. Happy and drunk one day, hangover the next.
I think I've been as confused as any, wondering why certain things didn't happen.
I was certain they would have shown a lot more than they did and the only thought I can take from that is that they didn't need to.
I think the dems expected it too, but nothing.
I don't want to raise false hopes because I have 2 different thoughts on it all.
Either Trump has the daddy of all nukes to drop on them
or the DS is too powerful and got to him somehow.
I hope it's the first.
Funny. When I pointed out in a few threads over the past 3 weeks that the ONLY charge Trump's team will be fighting is "incitement for insurrection" I got plenty of down votes with all the legends here claiming I have no idea what I am saying. "Because Trump will simply present all the voter fraud and then roll into WH by next week."
How the times have changed... Still strange how so many here never do even rudimentary analysis of a situation, but are quick on the trigger, err, keyboard.
All the politicians who voted to impeach get shot.
Think Myanmar?
Won't mean anything. They still impeached a civilian. He is not currently sworn in as President so if it were reversed, it wouldn't apply to an after the fact swearing in.
Who says he isn't sworn. He swore in the first time and if you never left office your oath stands, however if you don't like that they could do it in secret so this shit.could play out under the watchful protection of the u.s. military and a real.president with the football keeping China at bay.
No way the republican party will convict trump.
some will
If?
interesting question
This is a complete sham of an impeachment and is not legal.
Unless they're blackmailing the hell out of the Rep, the votes ain't there ☑️
A big ol clusterfuck lol