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 Senate impeachment trial should be postponed until the SCOTUS weighs in?
I could agree to that.
Why would anyone agree to that???
The whole democrat strategy is:
1. Impeach quickly, before the election. (They don’t even deny this)
2. Stall the exoneration until after the election.
Postponing the Senate trial would be validating the House’s strategy as well as their shoddy impeachment hearings.
Any logical person would conclude, if they had enough evidence to impeach him in the House, it should be enough to convict him in the Senate. If not, then the House didn’t do their jobs. If not, then the democrats must KNOW that they impeached an innocent man, or at least a man that didn’t have enough evidence against him for a real guilty verdict. Sorry, but there are consequences to shoddy work.
That was Pelosi's, Schiff's, and Nadler's call in the House. They were unwilling. Go figure. /shrug
Claiming for himself & all staff members (former & present), refusing to provide any & all testamentary doecuments & evidence & with the intent to block any & all inquiry, investigation & impeachment proceedings is not 'executive privilege', it is as Mr. Dershowitz asserts here:
ALAN DERSHOWITZ TELLS FOX NEWS DONALD TRUMP IS 'FAR MORE POWERFUL THAN' A KING
1. Impeach quickly, before the election. (They don’t even deny this)
2. Stall the exoneration until after the election.
Postponing the Senate trial would be validating the House’s strategy as well as their shoddy impeachment hearings.
Any logical person would conclude, if they had enough evidence to impeach him in the House, it should be enough to convict him in the Senate. If not, then the House didn’t do their jobs. If not, then the democrats must KNOW that they impeached an innocent man, or at least a man that didn’t have enough evidence against him for a real guilty verdict. Sorry, but there are consequences to shoddy work.
Claiming for himself & all staff members (former & present), refusing to provide any & all testamentary doecuments & evidence & with the intent to block any & all inquiry, investigation & impeachment proceedings is not 'executive privilege', it is as Mr. Dershowitz asserts here:
ALAN DERSHOWITZ TELLS FOX NEWS DONALD TRUMP IS 'FAR MORE POWERFUL THAN' A KING
SCOTUS has indeed ruled that POTUS can invoke executive privilege. That's why the House Dems impeaching him should have asked SCOTUS for a ruling, as was done in the never completed Nixon impeachment (not completed, as Nixon resigned). The House Dems SPECIFICALLY CHOSE to not do so. Unforced error, on their part. Or, perhaps they already knew they had an extremely weak case.
That was Pelosi's, Schiff's, and Nadler's call in the House. They were unwilling. Go figure. /shrug
That is not true. He has claimed absolute immunity in the case affirmed by the Second Circuit. He has also claimed total immunity from any investigation he unilaterally declares "illegitimate" per Pat Cippollone's letter, which is the functional equivalent to absolute immunity. He has not actually claimed executive privilege with respect to the Congressional impeachment inquiry. This has been pointed out to you numerous times.
... and then he says Bolton's testimony would help Trump. I'm not sure about that. He's a wild card, could go either way.
A lot of repubs want to eviscerate the House, by calling witnesses to utterly destroy the articles of impeachment, not to just vote to acquit Trump. They want to subpoena Schiff, the whistleblower, and the Bidens.
The thing is, that the TDS afflicted democrats have convinced themselves of their presumptions - that Trump's motivations were only to try and dig up opposition research on Biden, when he asked to have Zelensky work with Barr to "look into" the firing of Shokin. Of course that begs the question - what oppo research do the dems think would have been uncovered anyway? I mean, besides possibly uncovering criminal acts by the Bidens?
The dems are smug in their presumptions, and will never change even after a parade of witnesses all saying they never heard Trump ask for a quid pro quo, to dig up dirt on Biden or Ukraine wouldn't get the aid money.
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.
