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 appropriate constitutional position. The House investigates. The House assembles articles of impeachment.
The Senate is the trier of fact from those articles. If a witness is not included in the article assembly, that is a defect of the House; incurable in the Senate.
The appropriate constitutional position. The House investigates. The House assembles articles of impeachment.
The Senate is the trier of fact from those articles. If a witness is not included in the article assembly, that is a defect of the House; incurable in the Senate.
You just invented the bolded sentence. No one is stupid enough to buy it. The Senate sets their own rules and can hear from whomever the rules allow for.
The media is hyping him as the wooden stake that will finally be driven into Trumps heart but as we have seen before the hype does not often match what is finally presented. The Mueller report debacle comes to mind and the Kavanaugh/Ford nonsense is another.
Let's hear what he has to say. I really doubt it is going to sway anyone's mind one way or the other.
I think it is really difficult to listen to and believe someone that has a personal bias against another andBolton is no fan of Trump.
Bolton has detailed contemporaneous notes from that whole period. He will be able to back up everything he says.
Dershowitz isn't the arbiter of what is or isn't an impeachable offense.
Hell, back in '98 he (and Lindsey Graham) were both in the "you don't need to commit an actual crime to be impeached" club. Funny how their opinions have, ahem, evolved.
there is no such thing as an impeachable offense vs a non impeachable offense. All is needed for an impeachment is for a majority vote in the house. They could impeach the president for using the wrong fork during a state dinner if they could get enough votes. What was intended was to impeach for High Crimes, they added "and other misdemeanors in case there were things that were very bad but didn't categorize as a high crime. I do think that for the house to impeach should be moved to a 2/3rds vote as it should be serious and shouldn't be such a partisan divide. If President Obama clearly did something like order the killing of a reporter that was writing unfavorable articles about him I doubt there would be any democrats that would've voted against impeaching him. And if President Trump had done something like ordering the shooting of illegals coming over the border I would bet there wouldn't be any Republicans voting against impeachment... well maybe a couple in each case. but impeachment should only be in cases that the president did something really bad. Sleeping with in Intern doesn't rise to this and Looking for impeachment from Day 1 because you didn't like the outcome of an election doesn't either. Unfortunately the country is so divided that no matter what evidence is shown to prove or disprove ones case nothing will be resolved.
Unless he somehow changed the votes, he won fair and square. And we know that didn’t happen.
The dems had the entire media putting out their propaganda against Trump. You don’t have a problem with that. What is the difference where the propaganda comes from.
- We don't? Any day now.
- I'm OK with the media. They aren't foreign agents.
You just invented the bolded sentence. No one is stupid enough to buy it. The Senate sets their own rules and can hear from whomever the rules allow for.
That's exactly what Lindsey Graham in that post and many other Senators are Saying.
It's what the Dems said in 1998 in the Clinton Impeachment.
It is the Process of the Senate. It is not their place to fix the House's screwups.
Take it up with them. They are the ones who vote and are the Judge and Jury.
If asking a foreign country to dig up dirt on a political opponent to help yourself win the presidency & then preventing anyone from finding the truth isn't impeachable then nothing is.
Got even a shred of evidence that he asked Zelensky to dig up dirt on Biden specifically to hurt Biden in the 2020 election?
Anyone testify to having heard Trump say that? Any documented evidence of him saying that?
Was aid withheld, or was it delivered within the timeframe specified?
Was an investigation ever undertaken, or even promised to be undertaken prior to the obligated aid being delivered?
Has the alleged victim of the alleged bribe/extortion ever once said he felt pressured, victimized or otherwise intimidated into doing an investigation that still this day has never happened?
What we have here is nothing actually happened, and fictional narrative concerning motive/intent of that nothing.
Not after Dersh laid down the law, yesterday.
Trump brought in all Jerry Nadler's "Constitutional Experts" Harvard Professor, to set the record straight.
That was Constitutional Law 101, free of charge. Many students have paid thru the nose to hear and get that kind of education, you just got for free.
Meh. Dershowitz blew a major hole in his credibility when he tried to smear Robert Mueller with the Whitey Bulger FBI scandal, only to have his argument demolished by Federal Judge Nancy Gertner in a piece that appeared in the New York Times. Judge Gertner took Dershowitz to school that day. Now only Trump's supporters take Dershowitz seriously.
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.
