Is POTUS walking into a trap in the Senate?

@paulsperry_ on twitter ^ | 01/14/20 | Paul Sperry

[blueyon]

Is POTUS walking into a trap in the Senate?

[Lean-Right]

With President Trumps’ base being as solid as it is,
you can bet that McConnell is very much aware of how
his (Trumps’) patriots will react if the senate decides
against him. Even if McConnell is a rat, he will not
want to be held responsible for the repercussion.

[Chickensoup]

why doesn’t any one talk about how this is a ploy by Pelosi to become first woman president?

[Chickensoup]

Pelosi’s ambition is to remove both trump and pence and become first woman president.

[Liz]

Thanks.....keep hammering the point.

[norwaypinesavage]

The Senate can pass any SENATE rules they want with just 51 votes. They could, for instance, require John Roberts to wear a clown suit while presiding over the impeachment process. (Hmmmmm. I’d vote for that!) However, Senate rules don’t override any laws. Any change in the law requires a concurrent vote in the House, and approval by the POTUS. I doubt he’s go for a law removing him from office.

[lurk]

Every comment here is speculation. We have no control over this, so let’s just watch.

[damper99]

If Mitch can figure out a way to screw Trump without catching blowback, be assured he will do it.

[going hot]

Does the roadrunner ever walk into a trap?

[Nateman]

I’ve got a lot of response to my post about a 51 vote banning someone from office for life under impeachment. Comments range from “Wrong!” , “Where did you hear this -- from Rachel Maddow? “ and my favorite: “if you want to read insane unverified cr@p, FR's the place to do it”. As it turns out I think Liz was the source . Liz has been posting here at Free Republic even longer than I have! She even posted a link on this very thread laying out this devious conspiracy theory.

Having gone over what Liz posted carefully two points need to be addressed. It mentions a law that allows for this nightmare coup but does not name that law or provide a source . The second point mentioned is the precedent of being banned for life. All of those mentioned were for an extra vote after a successful conviction. No precedent set for a separate vote after acquittal or as I call it based on Clinton’s trail , a hung jury.

Given that we know the Obama regime spied on everybody the possibility remains the Court of Supreme Whim is tainted and would support the separate banned for life vote even after the hung jury outcome. The law is what 5 of the 9 say it is .

It would not be the first time this arbitrary court tossed aside a reasonable argument such as "the President was not convicted so you can’t have that punishment vote afterwards". Like the Dred Scott decision it would mark the beginning of another Democrat-Republican hot war.

This is why I’m such an advocate for Article V . Both Lincoln and Buchanan wanted a Convention of States but there simply was not enough time to make it happen. We got the First Democrat/Republican war that killed more Americans than all its other wars combined. At the time they did not have chemical , nuclear or biological weapons. A Second Democrat-Republican war has that option now and I believe the RAT party is evil enough to use such weapons.

[Liz]

Nanzi has cunningly advanced her own obsession with being president——she is third in line.

NOTE WELL-—She has tasked Schiff to get the dirt to takeout Pence.

But she cunningly structured impeachment articles so that they have nothing to do with acquittal or conviction.

The two Articles of Impeachment include wording that Trump should not only be impeached, tried and removed from office.......

....... but that the House has deemed Trump’s actions are so egregious that he also warrants
“disqualification” to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

That means even if Trump is reelected, Nanzi will make sure he would not be able to take office.

Enter Nanzi.

[Nateman]

So what Republican Senators would take the role of Brutus? Romney for sure, he ran just to be a pain to Trump for 6 years.

[HapaxLegamenon]

The Constitution is pretty clear Article I, Section 3 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

[867V309]

...and my favorite: “if you want to read insane unverified cr@p, FR's the place to do it”.

wow, thanks!      I have been referred-to many times, but rarely as their "favorite"