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.
So, please, allow me. Here is a quote from a report about that article, putting it in its proper perspective:
The Democrat's own Harvard Law experts are insisting that Trump has not been impeached, until this matter has been conveyed by the House to the Senate. For what that is worth, and one might expect the Democrats to think that is worth a lot. Feldman being one of their hand-chosen experts and all.
That certainly seems to create a PR problem for them if she continues to hold up sending the articles to the Senate lol.
Since there are no specific time frames, she has some cover with the holiday recess.
Beyond that I think she's on shaky ground constitutionally herself. She will then be abusing her power by using the tool of impeachment other than how it was intended and obstructing the will of Congress as expressed by their vote.
She's also trying to usurp power from the Senate that doesn't belong to her. She can only play that game for so long imo before someone challenges her in the court.
So we are talking a week or two before its official? By the time the history books go to the printing press, Trump will be "Officially" Impeached. I guess I don't understand why this is a big deal.
Why are you citing an excerpt from the House manual? It has no relevance or authority over the Senate.
The US Senate is not under any obligation to fix a failed House but they certainly have the option to. You seem to be operating from the perspective that the Senate doesn't want to bear this burden and I'm operating from the perspective that it benefits the Senate to take it on.
McConnell has already said he's not taking on the burden of fixing the House's mess.
They could dismiss it probably, but I cant see how they can have a trial without the people who created the case presenting it.
It doesn't have to be a trial in the likeness of a typical judicial trial. The Senate has sole power to determine what constitutes a fair trial. That means it doesn't even have to be "presented" in the traditional sense. They could choose to simply review the public record statements made during the House hearings.
It doesn't have to be a trial in the likeness of a typical judicial trial. The Senate has sole power to determine what constitutes a fair trial. That means it doesn't even have to be "presented" in the traditional sense. They could choose to simply review the public record statements made during the House hearings.
Can't have a trial without a prosecutor. Who is going to prosecute the trial on behalf of the accusers?
Of course you are simply arguing a nonsense point and making up fallacious strawmen to defend. Here she is in her own words.
McConnell should put on his own Impeachment show for about 6 months to kill the Dims election cycle.
That would be cruel. They only slandered, libel and defamed him, with the threat of Treason charges, which means death...... McConnell should just fold.
They declared war... What's a Constitutionalist to do?
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.
