The 2nd Impeachment of (former) President Donald J. Trump (Page 5/9)
sourmash FEB 12, 08:20 PM
Heard today that 15 senators didn't attend which leads one to think they have a plan to get it to 2/3rds of PRESIDING senators to convict and if some don't attend the vote to convict requires a smaller number. You would think it would need to be Republicans that aren't attending. If so, are you learning what I've been saying about them?

Also, it's been suggested that the Proud Boys (White supremacists) were headed by a proven FBI informant and the 3%era are headed by a former FBI agent then the 2 most notorious groups were FBI run orgs.

[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 02-12-2021).]

randye FEB 12, 09:26 PM

quote
Originally posted by sourmash:

Heard today that 15 senators didn't attend which leads one to think they have a plan to get it to 2/3rds of PRESIDING senators to convict and if some don't attend the vote to convict requires a smaller number.




That isn't how it works.

Moreover, those 15 Senators were there, they simply weren't sitting in their seats in the Senate chamber when the Leftist reporter looked for them...

https://theconservativeopin...d-impeachment-trial/

They will vote and they will most likely vote to acquit.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-12-2021).]

sourmash FEB 12, 10:13 PM
After seeing who some of the senators are, they're just bored with the sham proceedings.
GTGeff FEB 13, 12:28 AM

quote
Originally posted by randye:


Thanks, however the rule of law is, by it's very nature, factual, and usually very precise. It is also totally bereft of emotion.

Law is so factual and precise that individual words have great importance, such as the difference between the words may and shall.

This is illustrated in the law of the United States as codified in our Constitution:

Article I, Section 3:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside..."


It doesn't say that the Chief Justice might or may. The Constitution unequivocally and precisely says the Chief Justice SHALL preside.

There is no Constitutional provision to force the Chief Justice to preside and there is NO case law that addresses it.

Likewise there is absolutely NO Constitutional provision that allows the Congress or either of the other two branches of government to appoint anyone else to serve in place of the Chief Justice.

That means that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must preside and in the present instance where Chief Justice Roberts has refused to participate the Senate should have been left incapable and without legal jurisdiction to proceed unless or until the issue was settled by the Judicial Branch of our government.

Senate Leftists, with the help of some incredibly ignorant Senate Republicans, completely usurped the legal role of the Judicial Branch to decide what is Constitutional or not and instead voted among themselves if or how the United States Constitution limits them and went ahead with this travesty.

They also appointed a currently serving, partisan politician and member of the former President's opposition party to preside instead of the Chief Justice.

We are now very firmly in Banana Republic, totalitarian, territory and as someone else said in another thread; "I don't know where we go from here."

My very firm sense is that if this behavior of those presently holding the reins of power in our government continues unabated, eventually the guns will come out, the bullets will fly and blood will flow.




Exactly!
Australian FEB 13, 01:48 AM
Anyone watch either of them it sounds a lot more damning in title but a lot of nonsense is being dismissed. It certainly isn't a slam dunk.
rinselberg FEB 13, 04:04 PM
Check out the caption directly below the photo.



So I know where to look when I want to read about the investigation.

Spoiler Alert

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-13-2021).]

Raydar FEB 13, 04:07 PM
Not guilty.
Bi+ches.
randye FEB 13, 04:20 PM

quote
Originally posted by Raydar:

Not guilty.
Bi+ches.






Leftists will now move to their next unconstitutional wet dream:



https://hotair.com/archives...ng-unconstitutional/

"Despite the obvious unconstitutionality of the plan, McClatchy reports that Democrats still want to keep the so-called 14th Amendment Option in reserve in the all-too-certain case that the impeachment trial results in an acquittal for Donald Trump. Democrats want to "defend the Constitution" by violating one of its core controls on congressional power, it seems"

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-13-2021).]

williegoat FEB 13, 04:21 PM

quote
Originally posted by Raydar:

Not guilty.
Bi+ches.


Thank you. I didn't expect it that fast.

Now, can we impeach Lyndon Johnson?



Tricky Dick is giving him that "What the fork is wrong with you?" look.
IMSA GT FEB 13, 05:40 PM

quote
Originally posted by Raydar:

Not guilty.
Bi+ches.


[This message has been edited by IMSA GT (edited 02-13-2021).]