Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The question would become, 'Would President Trump continue to exert privileges to withhold those witnesses [Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo and possibly Perry and/or Giuliani]?' In that case, the Senate trial could potentially be delayed...if it was litigated up through the courts for the next months or even year or two before it could be resolved whether Trump should be removed from office..."
Am I understanding this? It's common knowledge that Pelosi is delaying sending over the articles until she knows the makeup of the Senate trial. Pro-Republicans have asserted she cannot constitutionally do this. Is Pelosi crazy like a fox in possibly pushing this into the courts where the Democrat senators would argue their right to call witnesses and the Republican senators would argue their right to decide that as the majority they have the right not to call witnesses and the process of the courts trying to decide if the Democrats or the Republicans win on the issue of the witnesses?
The Senate sole power to conduct impeachment trials has been ruled by SCOTUS as absolute and not reviewable. The Senate would not have to wait for such litigation to work it's way through the courts.
So you agree Trump is corrupt, but you don't care because we need a strong leader???
Our founding father are rolling over in their graves.
Agree on both counts. Particularly because the founders were concerned that a sitting president would abuse the power of the office to get re-elected.
A review of the Constitution reveals that removal from office was to be taken seriously, & further was not meant to be easy. A simple majority vote in the House would impeach however removal from office would require 2/3 Senate.
The Senate sole power to conduct impeachment trials has been ruled by SCOTUS as absolute and not reviewable. The Senate would not have to wait for such litigation to work it's way through the courts.
No to be nit picky but which SCOTUS ruling was that?
Agree on both counts. Particularly because the founders were concerned that a sitting president would abuse the power of the office to get re-elected.
A review of the Constitution reveals that removal from office was to be taken seriously, & further was not meant to be easy. A simple majority vote in the House would impeach however removal from office would require 2/3 Senate.
This is funny.....
I bet the founders also never thought that a president would be impeached because they just hate the person....
But let me ask you, if this impeachment was due to our national security, why did nancy not personally deliver the articles? I guess it was all just a lie....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
