Nothing stupid about it.
Any of the Republicans could have gone on love fest for Trump.
None did.
Probably because even their fellow Republicans would have laughed at the.
Trump is an abomination.
If Trump were innocent...
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Nothing stupid about it.
Any of the Republicans could have gone on love fest for Trump.
None did.
Probably because even their fellow Republicans would have laughed at the.
Trump is an abomination.
It's not a trial. They were hearings.
You know, if you actually aren't informed at all on this process (and you clearly aren't), I'm curious as to why you feel entitled to weigh in?
It's still an "impeachment". That's what the House brings...articles of impeachment (charges, accusations, etc.)
If all the Dems wanted out of this mess is to say they stuck an asterisk by his name, then big deal, they got it.
Oh......hey Nancy! About that fair trial stuff..........that's written for the accused, not the accuser......since 1215A.D.
She can hold on to those articles and die with them. That would show that their "urgency" reason to get it finished prior to the next
election was a lie as their basis for speed.
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnd......McConnell has SOLE POWER over this now in the Senate, the hell with any House demands.
McConnell can call in the Chief Justice and git'r done.
Bill testified under oath as a man with a defense would. Hillary, who was not president, testified under oath as an honest person would.
A couple of years ago, Trump said he would be happy to testify under oath. Then he was told by lawyers, that is a bad plan for someone who is guilty. So he started walking it back. Now he refuses to testify or provide a scrap of information. Yep, that is what a guilty man would do.
Trump is a fucking crook and the rightys do not care.
Trump now says he will not even join debates when the election gets nearer.
Trump is just doing what a guilty man with much to hide would do. he is lying and hiding.
A couple of years ago, Trump said he would be happy to testify under oath. Then he was told by lawyers, that is a bad plan for someone who is guilty. So he started walking it back. Now he refuses to testify or provide a scrap of information. Yep, that is what a guilty man would do.
Trump is a fucking crook and the rightys do not care.
Trump now says he will not even join debates when the election gets nearer.
Trump is just doing what a guilty man with much to hide would do. he is lying and hiding.
Southern Chicken
Verified User
That is where your logic falls apart. Impeachment isnt a tool for liking or not liking a person. It is a legislative tool to remove a corrupt government official.
Okay...impeachment is a legislative tool to remove a corrupt government official.
That is what the members of the House are trying to do.
Is there something wrong with calling attention to the fact that the corrupt government officialf in this instance...also is an abomination?
Not sure where you are heading with this.
Well said!!!
Wrong; the presumption of innocence is a given and presumed in the Constitution in several articles as described in SCOTUS decisions.
Show me where the Constitution gives the presumption of innocence in nonjudicial cases, such as impeachment. You need a better education.
Superfreak
Verified User
LMAO... there was no 'blackmail' you twit.
The money has already been delivered. It was delivered prior to his statement. You idiots keep creating these conspiracies to explain why the people actually involved aren't going along with your fantasies.
Superfreak
Verified User
Show me in the constitution where it states it is not.
Already did that; apparently you glossed right over it in your continuing effort to bloviate ignorantly like a partisan hack.
Can you imagine if we didn't have that? Everyone is guilty until they prove their innocence? Yes, we would be a lawless Fascistic third world shit hole.
The presumption of innocence is very widely known and it's considered to be one of your basic rights if you're ever accused of a crime. But is it actually in the U.S. Constitution?
Direct Statements and Amendments
Technically speaking, it's not. The Constitution does not mention this right by name. Instead, the general principle was simply taken from English common law. It has since been backed up firmly in numerous cases, by many accounts starting with Coffin vs. the United States in 1895.
That being said, the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment both speak to the "due process" that is intended to be carried out. It is a Constitutional right to be allowed this due process, and it is understood that your right to be presumed innocent is a "fundamental element" of this process. In that sense, it is a Constitutional right, even if it is not directly addressed.
Last edited:
They keep LYING about what happened. It's not creating.
So, he's innocent.
So you think when he told the Ukrainian president to announce an investigation into Hunter and Joe Biden in exchange for aid he was withholding, it was PURELY in the interests of U.S. national security?
Please flesh out this argument/
Of course they're going to acquit, they're lemmings. I never said otherwise. Like Jeff Flake said... if it were a secret vote at least 35 GOP senators would vote against trump.
If Impeachment Articles Are Not Delivered, Did Impeachment Happen?
By Andrew C. McCarthy
December 19, 2019 5:44 PM
It’s hard to believe the Speaker’s latest stunt will go on for very long.
I’ll confess: Last night, when I was first told that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was toying with the idea of not delivering the two articles of impeachment voted by the House against President Trump, I assumed it was a joke.
For these last weeks, the Democrat-dominated chamber has been in a mad rush to impeach the president. Democrats even tacked on article two — “obstruction of Congress” — because, they told us, time could not be wasted engaging in the usual negotiation and litigation over legislative demands for executive branch information. Trump is a clear and present threat to “continue” undermining our elections, we were admonished. That’s why he needs to be impeached right now. That’s why the political class cannot responsibly leave his fate up to the sovereign, the People, who will vote in November.
But now that the deed is done, it’s . . . hey, not so fast.
Pelosi and Democratic leadership have convinced themselves there may be advantage in delaying the formal, ministerial delivery of the impeachment articles — as if Mitch McConnell were in as much a hurry to receive them as Democrats were to conjure them up. The thought is that this latest strategic petulance might pressure Senator McConnell into promising a full-blown trial, including summoning as witnesses top aides of the president whom the House didn’t bother to summon because tangling over privilege issues would have slowed up the works.
So it’s not a joke, but I still have to laugh. When I was a prosecutor negotiating plea deals, I always found the most pathetic defense lawyers were the ones who acted like they were playing with the House money when, in stark reality, it was they who needed something from me. Now here’s Pelosi trying to play hard to get with McConnell who, I imagine, couldn’t care less how long Democrats want to dither.
What we’ve just seen is the most partisan impeachment in American history, every step of it politically calculated. Obviously, if Democrats perceived advantage in stretching the process out, it would still be going on. There would be more witnesses; more 300- or 600-page committee reports to try to add heft and gravity to vague allegations of inchoate misconduct; more speeches about Trump as a threat to democracy and life as we know it; etc., etc.
To the contrary, Pelosi & Co. want this train wreck in the rearview mirror ASAP. The public is indifferent and polls are edging in Trump’s favor. On our local news this morning, the third impeachment of a president of the United States in American history couldn’t crack the top stories — it came in behind cold weather (in December) and the rescue of an elderly man in a gym by a couple of off-duty cops.
No one, of course, has to explain this to McConnell. In public, at least, he’s not a laughing-his-head-off kinda guy, but if he were, he would be.
It’s hard to believe the Speaker’s latest stunt will go on for very long. In the Senate this morning, the Democrats’ minority leader, Senator Chuck Schumer, renewed his demands about trial procedures, discovery, and witness testimony. There was no discernible hint of doubt that the House would soon deliver its impeachment articles, such as they are.
But since we’ll be playing trivial pursuit for a more few hours (days?), we might as well ask: As long as the House withholds the impeachment articles from the Senate, has Trump been impeached?
In the law, there are many situations in which an outcome is known, but it is not a formal outcome until some ministerial act is taken. A grand jury can vote an indictment, for example, but the defendant is not considered indicted until the charges are filed with the clerk of the court. A defendant can be found guilty by a jury, but there is technically no conviction until the judgment is “entered” by the trial court, usually months later when sentence is imposed. An appellate court can issue a ruling that orders a lower court to take some action, but the lower court has no jurisdiction to act in the case until issuance of the appellate court’s “mandate” — the document that formally transfers jurisdiction.
Plainly, Congress has similar ministerial acts of transference that must occur in order for legislation to pass. Were that not the case, Speaker Pelosi would not be talking about delaying the transfer of impeachment articles.
So it’s all well and good for the Speaker to hold up the works that Democrats, five minutes ago, were breathlessly telling us had to be carried out with all due haste. But many scholars take the position that the Constitution requires a trial if there has been an impeachment. If such a trial cannot properly occur unless and until articles of impeachment have been transferred from the House to the Senate, and Speaker Pelosi won’t transfer them, has President Trump actually been impeached?
Sure, it’s a stupid question . . . but we’re living in stupid times.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...chment-happen/
By Andrew C. McCarthy
December 19, 2019 5:44 PM
It’s hard to believe the Speaker’s latest stunt will go on for very long.
I’ll confess: Last night, when I was first told that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was toying with the idea of not delivering the two articles of impeachment voted by the House against President Trump, I assumed it was a joke.
For these last weeks, the Democrat-dominated chamber has been in a mad rush to impeach the president. Democrats even tacked on article two — “obstruction of Congress” — because, they told us, time could not be wasted engaging in the usual negotiation and litigation over legislative demands for executive branch information. Trump is a clear and present threat to “continue” undermining our elections, we were admonished. That’s why he needs to be impeached right now. That’s why the political class cannot responsibly leave his fate up to the sovereign, the People, who will vote in November.
But now that the deed is done, it’s . . . hey, not so fast.
Pelosi and Democratic leadership have convinced themselves there may be advantage in delaying the formal, ministerial delivery of the impeachment articles — as if Mitch McConnell were in as much a hurry to receive them as Democrats were to conjure them up. The thought is that this latest strategic petulance might pressure Senator McConnell into promising a full-blown trial, including summoning as witnesses top aides of the president whom the House didn’t bother to summon because tangling over privilege issues would have slowed up the works.
So it’s not a joke, but I still have to laugh. When I was a prosecutor negotiating plea deals, I always found the most pathetic defense lawyers were the ones who acted like they were playing with the House money when, in stark reality, it was they who needed something from me. Now here’s Pelosi trying to play hard to get with McConnell who, I imagine, couldn’t care less how long Democrats want to dither.
What we’ve just seen is the most partisan impeachment in American history, every step of it politically calculated. Obviously, if Democrats perceived advantage in stretching the process out, it would still be going on. There would be more witnesses; more 300- or 600-page committee reports to try to add heft and gravity to vague allegations of inchoate misconduct; more speeches about Trump as a threat to democracy and life as we know it; etc., etc.
To the contrary, Pelosi & Co. want this train wreck in the rearview mirror ASAP. The public is indifferent and polls are edging in Trump’s favor. On our local news this morning, the third impeachment of a president of the United States in American history couldn’t crack the top stories — it came in behind cold weather (in December) and the rescue of an elderly man in a gym by a couple of off-duty cops.
No one, of course, has to explain this to McConnell. In public, at least, he’s not a laughing-his-head-off kinda guy, but if he were, he would be.
It’s hard to believe the Speaker’s latest stunt will go on for very long. In the Senate this morning, the Democrats’ minority leader, Senator Chuck Schumer, renewed his demands about trial procedures, discovery, and witness testimony. There was no discernible hint of doubt that the House would soon deliver its impeachment articles, such as they are.
But since we’ll be playing trivial pursuit for a more few hours (days?), we might as well ask: As long as the House withholds the impeachment articles from the Senate, has Trump been impeached?
In the law, there are many situations in which an outcome is known, but it is not a formal outcome until some ministerial act is taken. A grand jury can vote an indictment, for example, but the defendant is not considered indicted until the charges are filed with the clerk of the court. A defendant can be found guilty by a jury, but there is technically no conviction until the judgment is “entered” by the trial court, usually months later when sentence is imposed. An appellate court can issue a ruling that orders a lower court to take some action, but the lower court has no jurisdiction to act in the case until issuance of the appellate court’s “mandate” — the document that formally transfers jurisdiction.
Plainly, Congress has similar ministerial acts of transference that must occur in order for legislation to pass. Were that not the case, Speaker Pelosi would not be talking about delaying the transfer of impeachment articles.
So it’s all well and good for the Speaker to hold up the works that Democrats, five minutes ago, were breathlessly telling us had to be carried out with all due haste. But many scholars take the position that the Constitution requires a trial if there has been an impeachment. If such a trial cannot properly occur unless and until articles of impeachment have been transferred from the House to the Senate, and Speaker Pelosi won’t transfer them, has President Trump actually been impeached?
Sure, it’s a stupid question . . . but we’re living in stupid times.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...chment-happen/