It's official, Trump has been Acquitted

[chipbennett]

As stated. You express an opinion and it has no basis in authority that I can discern. Your opinion also seems to lack authoritative support or citation,

Maybe, instead of engaging in logical fallacy (asking for my law degree reference) you should have asked for a court decision citation. I can easily provide the latter. Refer to Nixon v United States (1993). To wit:

The Clause's first sentence must instead be read as a grant of authority to the Senate to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted, and the commonsense and dictionary meanings of the word "sole" indicate that this authority is reposed in the Senate alone. Nixon's attempts to negate the significance of "sole" are unavailing, while his alternative reading of the word as requiring impeachment only by the full Senate is unnatural and would impose on the Senate additional procedural requirements that would be inconsistent with the three express limitations that the Clause sets out. A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review...

 

[Alpo]

Maybe, instead of engaging in logical fallacy (asking for my law degree reference) you should have asked for a court decision citation. I can easily provide the latter. Refer to Nixon v United States (1993). To wit:

You haven't tied it into a refutation of the Georgetown law professor's article I cited. Saying something is "obvious" when it is obviously NOT, doesn't wash. Support your opinion on how Nixon v. refutes the citation, please.

 

[Brad69]

What’s going on interwebs people I have been working for about the past 48 hours what’s new?
Did President DJT throw in the towel, is Johnny Bolton a backstabbing twit, has Hunter showed up?
Has Alpo finished the 12 step program for TDS?
Has KUT stopped being KUT?

Did anyone see where peace might be breaking out in the Middle East? Freaking Tump train just keeps rolling along!

 

[BugI02]

Dershowitz rather than say he was wrong about Clinton, says he's more correct concerning Trump.... even though it seems agreeing with something he previously disagreed with. That simply doesn't make sense. When something doesn't makes sense, I try to look beyond what is simply presented. Not to mention, generally the people that Dershowitz has defended have been thought to be guilty. It's a Who's who of scumbags: Tyson, OJ, Epstein, Jim Bakker... etc, etc... just sayin', he knows how to pick them

Even the poorest and most indigent defendant is held to have a right to an attorney. Is having greater means and employing a higher caliber of legal talent somehow to be held in contempt? And if defending OJ is a disqualifier, what then of Johnny Lee Cochrane Jr? If defending someone thought to be guilty (like Clinton) is a disqualifier, then whither Cheryl Mills (pick either Clinton here, she's kutsistent)

 

[ArcadiaGP]

What’s going on interwebs people I have been working for about the past 48 hours what’s new?

They finished the impeachment, we have President Pence now

Crowds are angry, want to impeach Pence, saying to replace "pray the gay away" with "woke the straight away"

Otherwise, things are going alright. It all happened pretty fast.

 

[BugI02]

I am somehow reminded of the little dog "helping" the other little dog across the street. Moral of the story....be careful coming to the aid of a drowning man. He may pull you under.

A well-developed sense of humor is the pole that adds balance to your steps as you walk the tightrope of life.

*.*

 

[Brad69]

I am ok with President Pence who did he appoint VP ?

 

[BugI02]

Next time....I'll do a GOP lifesaving technique: If you are drowning 100 feet offshore, I'll throw a 51 foot rope and tell you I've met you more than half way.

J'approuve!

 

[Alpo]

I am ok with President Pence who did he appoint VP ?

Pelosi. She was on deck anyway.

 

[Brad69]

That might work Pelosi is a crafty woman her evil would counter Pence’s honesty and values nicely.

 

[Alpo]

Evil?

I was expecting something more along the line of poisons. Game of Thronish.

 

[Ingomike]

So a very serious procedure that is overseen by the Chief Justice of SCOTS is greatly affected by reporting from an untrustworthy ideological media source. That reporting is based on an anonymous leak of an as of yet unpublished manuscript, that has neither been verified nor disclaimed by the party it is attributed to. The party that it is attributed to has a book coming out very soon, the book has been written and published with lightning speed compared to the normal process for publishing a book. It is certainly fascinating that the timing of the leak is just when it appeared witnesses were all but ruled out, the democrats were being criticized by even some in their own party.


The people promoting the book have a history of dramatic teases that turn out to be nothing when the book comes out. The person the manuscript is attributed to said he was unavailable to testify to the house, he was probably very busy writing this book in the haste needed to get it done on time. Now that the book is done he has indicated he could certainly testify to the Senate, conveniently right before the release of his book and during the pre-order period.

Due to the government positions held by the person the quotes are attributed to the manuscript had to be reviewed by the NSC to be certain nothing was being published that was classified etc. It is believed by some that the leak came from the NSC. While there is no evidence he was involved in approving the manuscript or involved in the leak of it to the NYT, it is incredibly coincidental that none other than Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's identical twin brother is a senior ethics lawyer at the NSC in charge of book approvals, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindmam. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindmam is widely suspected of being the source of the whistleblowers information to make the complaint.

Talk about deep state, out of the millions of government employees the idea that these twin brothers are in positions that have such an affect on an administration that testimony exists that they disagree with is unfathomable.

The plan to remove DJT from office is deep and wide, it is is coalition of forces that includes the opposing party, opposing political players of the Presidents party, the institutions of government, and the MSM media. If not for some alternative media and the Presidents direct communication via Twitter the information of other side would never get out...

 

[BugI02]

Maybe The Moustache is a closet Bernie Bro

Sanders, the Times quickly pointed out, is a millionaire, to which Sanders said "I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too.”

 

[jamil]

Dershowitz rather than say he was wrong about Clinton, says he's more correct concerning Trump.... even though it seems agreeing with something he previously disagreed with. That simply doesn't make sense. When something doesn't makes sense, I try to look beyond what is simply presented. Not to mention, generally the people that Dershowitz has defended have been thought to be guilty. It's a Who's who of scumbags: Tyson, OJ, Epstein, Jim Bakker... etc, etc... just sayin', he knows how to pick them

That is some next level rationalizing. I think it’s reasonable to look at alternate interpretations when what you’re given doesn’t make sense. But of all the possible interpretations you go for the one that supports the conclusion you made before you heard any evidence. How many others did you consider? How many of those did not support the conclusion you’ve already made?

 

[chipbennett]

You haven't tied it into a refutation of the Georgetown law professor's article I cited. Saying something is "obvious" when it is obviously NOT, doesn't wash. Support your opinion on how Nixon v. refutes the citation, please.

The article is discussing the matter of interpretation of Senate rules for conducting an impeachment inquiry - and in that matter, the Senate, and the Senate alone, gets to decide how to interpret the rules. If a majority of the Senate decides to interpret its own rules in a given way, the Chief Justice has absolutely no constitutional authority or responsibility to overrule the Senate's interpretation.

If he does so, he would be overstepping constitutional separation of power.

 

[jamil]

So, we're not allowed to consider the possibility that you've finally gone over the edge? [insert lesson in use of purple: here]

No. If I ever go over the edge, I’m taking my blinky with me. If you don’t see that, it’s probably a joke.

 

[jamil]

The gist of the opinion - at least to the extent that I skimmed the OpEd - is that CJ Roberts could act unilaterally. Obviously, if the Senate is directing the actions of CJ Roberts, that would be a different matter.

The Senate makes its own rules, including the rules around changing its own rules. And the final arbiter regarding those rules and their changes is... the Senate itself. SCOTUS has said already that it is not the place of any body or branch other than the Senate itself to intervene in such matters.

But they can’t make rules and then arbitrarily break them without voting a change in rules which allow it. The Senate is subject to the rules they pass. The room for questioning this article rests on whether the rules they cite say the things they say they say, and whether those rules are indeed applicable. For that you need to dig into those particular weeds.

 

[jamil]

But I have already seen Schiff saying Hunter or Joe Biden would not be a factual witness to the matter at hand. He has made no mention of the whistleblower, but now that they are done with him the same could be asserted about him and arguments made that his motivations do not affect the 'criminality' he supposedly revealed

I would expect Schiff and the house team to attempt to limit witnesses to only the ones they wish through public pressure amplified by their compliant media. The question is whether the usual squishes will open that can of worms by supporting witnesses at all, and whether they would have the stones to hold Schiff's own feet to the fire as well as the Bidens and Ciaramella. They had better have the sense to have exhaustive witnesses if they have any at all, but a long drawn out trial doesn't do the country any good as it derails actual important business beneficial to the average American. The Dems want to be able to say any quick dismissal is a whitewash and a cover-up and keep the cloud hanging over Trump while targeting control of the senate

We have to hope that disgust for 70+% tax rates and greatly expanded government control of just about everything will outweigh that, but that is a closer thing than many would like to think. If they thought their own constituents had any sense of propriety or fair play and might break with the 'get Trump' mentality, they would end this thing in a heartbeat. Until that time, they'll keep running this play because it works

If the final resolution of this is to allow the Senate to subpoena and call new witnesses, the the GOP certainly should be able to call Hunter Biden. It seems relevant if the president’s defense is that he believed a crime was committed, showing evidence pursuant to that seems fair to me. But I’m also okay with making Democrats sleep in the bed they pissed in.

 

[BugI02]

I'm beginning to think there is method to the madness, that while they would certainly welcome whatever incidental damage they can do Trump the real play is to give the Senate unpalatable choices that can be exploited either way as ammunition for attempting to flip the Senate. I think they see the continued ability to appoint constitutionalist judges for four more years as an existential threat to the progressive long march

 

[Alpo]

But they can’t make rules and then arbitrarily break them without voting a change in rules which allow it. The Senate is subject to the rules they pass. The room for questioning this article rests on whether the rules they cite say the things they say they say, and whether those rules are indeed applicable. For that you need to dig into those particular weeds.

Exactly.