Inquiries and Impeachment of Trump

[Jaxson66]

Some people’s kids...

[Jaxson66]

The Supreme Court can review an unfair impeachment trial In general, the courts will defer to the Senate. But there are limits, some justices have said.

If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell follows through on his desire to hold an abbreviated impeachment trial without witnesses — as many in his party would prefer — he will be testing the limits of the impeachment trial clause of the Constitution. Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer has declared that a trial without witnesses (or perhaps even any documents) would amount to “a coverup.” Worries about a rubber-stamp trial are one reason House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has delayed submitting the articles of impeachment.

If such a sham trial comes to pass, is there any remedy? In fact, there is a stronger case than many think that the Supreme Court has the power to review impeachment trials, to ensure that Senate procedures meet a basic level of fairness.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...tml?tid=pm_pop

I didn’t know that, that’s good for the side of democracy and bad for the trump regime. The fat lying bastard will not be happy to learn that.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

The Supreme Court can review an unfair impeachment trial In general, the courts will defer to the Senate. But there are limits, some justices have said.

A problem with this bullshit ..... if it is TRUE, then the SCOTUS can "review" the "fairness" of the process that resulted in "Articles of Impeachment" .... but ...


the fallacy of the proposition is that the SCOTUS derives it's jurisdiction from the U.S. Constitution, which does not include jurisdiction over the "impeachment" as a jurisdictional matter.

So you LOONS had better hope they don't "imply" jurisdiction and REVIEW the JOKE from the HOUSE! Speaker PissLousy has shit in her britches. I predict they would slam dunk this House Bullshit! That is EXACTLY why the Loons in the House didn't want to seek Court enforcement of any subpoena .... they'd get shit-canned in a heartbeat .... too much precedent.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Some people’s kids...

Not yours!

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

A problem with this bullshit ..... if it is TRUE, then the SCOTUS can "review" the "fairness" of the process that resulted in "Articles of Impeachment" .... but ...


the fallacy of the proposition is that the SCOTUS derives it's jurisdiction from the U.S. Constitution, which does not include jurisdiction over the "impeachment" as a jurisdictional matter.

So you LOONS had better hope they don't "imply" jurisdiction and REVIEW the JOKE from the HOUSE! Speaker PissLousy has shit in her britches. I predict they would slam dunk this House Bullshit! That is EXACTLY why the Loons in the House didn't want to seek Court enforcement of any subpoena .... they'd get shit-canned in a heartbeat .... too much precedent.

Yeah, this is getting hilarious. A few posts back he was bashing Guiliani for proposing that the SCOTUS would potentially have the power to overturn the House Impeachment on Constitutional grounds, now he posts a wishful thinking article on the SCOTUS overruling the Senate.

Can you say delusional?

My feeling is this is going to go somewhat like Clinton's impeachment, which McConnel has stated repeatedly is model he will most likely follow.

The Senate will receive the articles and the House managers to present their case. The Presidents counsel will rebut. The Senate will then decide on witnesses and I'm just guessing that they follow the Clinton model of allowing some witnesses to be further deposed and then select parts of those depositions presented for the Senate to review. No physical testimony will take place.

Unfortunately for the left, these witnesses will be ones who were already materially mentioned in the House's investigations and basis for the Articles of Impeachment in the first place. This will not include expanding the case against Trump, just clarifying necessary witness accounts. And since the House didn't actually come up with a crime to impeach on and it's going to be hard to add anything to the existing witnesses testimonies, It's not going to have any direct effect on the outcome.

Which we all know is, Viva la Acquittal!!!

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

A problem with this bullshit ..... if it is TRUE, then the SCOTUS can "review" the "fairness" of the process that resulted in "Articles of Impeachment" .... but ...


the fallacy of the proposition is that the SCOTUS derives it's jurisdiction from the U.S. Constitution, which does not include jurisdiction over the "impeachment" as a jurisdictional matter.

So you LOONS had better hope they don't "imply" jurisdiction and REVIEW the JOKE from the HOUSE! Speaker PissLousy has shit in her britches. I predict they would slam dunk this House Bullshit! That is EXACTLY why the Loons in the House didn't want to seek Court enforcement of any subpoena .... they'd get shit-canned in a heartbeat .... too much precedent.

Lexus loser you aren’t sounding very confident

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eccielover

My feeling is this is going to go somewhat like Clinton's impeachment, which McConnel has stated repeatedly is model he will most likely follow.

There was at least a legal basis for the Clinton articles. None here!

[oeb11]

J666 - get a hearing aid!
And a hypocrisy vaccination.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Lexus .... you aren’t sounding very confident.

No. (Since you weren't addressing me I FIFY!)

Just smarter than you, and that's nothing to brag about I assure you!

Don't they let you drink beer on the Station driveway any more?

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

There was at least a legal basis for the Clinton articles. None here!

Says who, you? What are you, a failed law student?

I believe all you know is what your told to believe like the rest of Cult45.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Says who, you? What are you, a failed law student?

I believe all you know is what your told to believe like the rest of Cult45.

What, no snappy quote from the WAPO. I think you are starting to sound a little less confident.

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

No. (Since you weren't addressing me I FIFY!)

Just smarter than you, and that's nothing to brag about I assure you

LexusLoser , You’re a cult member, you only know what your told to believe.

Shouldn’t you be in bible class praying for the destruction of the DPSTs with other cult members...

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by eccielover

What, no snappy quote from the WAPO. I think you are starting to sound a little less confident.

Like this one...
Justice Dept. winds down Clinton-related inquiry once championed by Trump. It found nothing of consequence.

But, but, but you wait for the Durham report screamed the cult45

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Says who, you?

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/13/u...s-lawsuit.html

A Federal Judge. I know you've never met one, but they do exist.

One of the articles was for PERJURY. That's a crime!

Trump has not been charged with a crime in the current articles.

BTW, dumbass, a POTUS exercising administrative discretion (particularly when authorized by the Congress ... not to mention the U.S. Constitution) is not a "crime" ... much less a "high crime or misdemeanor").....

...now PussLousy doesn't know that? Or does she think you don't know that? You pick!

... please find a station driveway today and have some more beer and spewed your bullshit to those dumbasses .... or have they banned you for stupidity?

Also, you're new here, aren't you?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eccielover

What, no snappy quote from the WAPO. I think you are starting to sound a little less confident.

Don't confuse retarded with "less confident"!