Posted on 12/15/2019 10:01:01 AM PST by Jim Robinson
We the people need to know why the Trump impeachment case has not been tossed out now that the IG report has confirmed that the case is built on nothing but lies and initiated by corrupt FBI officials based on a phony dossier paid for by Hillary and the DNC, ie, known false evidence used by corrupt prosecutors to obtain FISA warrants.
Comey and Schiff have both admitted today that this is true. They knowingly brought a false prosecution before the people and it must be tossed.
Oh Jim - “mistakes” were made. That’s all there is to it. /s
Yes, and mistakes of this nature are grounds to toss out any prosecution case.
Agreed - additionally some folks need to hang for this. Hope Durham has the rope ready.
Irrelevant, he’s being impeached because “orange man bad”.
Exactly right!!!!
And thanks for everything over the years.
Jim, is this not at the very least SEDITION, lying repeatedly to bring down the duly elected POTUS?
We the people need to see swift, harsh justice delivered to the perpetrators. All the way to the top. Just moving on as if this bullsh*t is normal won’t cut it. People need to hang.
“We have to vote for impeachment, so we that know what’s in it...” - Crime Boss Pelosi
So, I don't think the two charges involve the dossier/FISA directly, but I get your point in that the charges were a moving target and only settled on the day before the committee vote.
Regardless, they will pay in November.
They’re too far in to just pull back now.
The articles of impeachment could easily be tossed out as a “no bill” or as a bill designated as a “Bill of Attainder.”
You could hardly call what was done by Schiff , and Nadler in the house the predicate for a fair trial.The Bill of Attainder clause in the Constitution was meant to apply to a situation like the Senate faces now.
Bills of Attainder are specifically barred by Article 1 , section 9, clause 3 of the Constitution.
You can read the history of why Bills of Attainder are barred from passage in the House. Kings in England used to use them in England to seize property or jail/execute people who disagreed with them without a trial. George the III’s representatives in the Colonies used them . That’s why the founders put the clause in the Constitution.
********************************************
A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself. Bills of attainder passed in Parliament by Henry VIII on 29 January 1542 resulted in the executions of a number of notable historical figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
****************************
The constitution
Article I , Section 9, clause 3
“No Bill of Attainder...shall be passed.
The history of why the clause was included in the Cnstitution:
https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/62/bill-of-attainder
*********************************
Because the leaders of the Democrat Party don’t want to be punished for the crimes they have committed.
I called PA’s demorat representatives to request not voting for Impeachment.....all mail box’s are full!
Today was the opening of a new narrative
“... yes mistakes were made because so many people hate orange man.
Now here’s what we’re going to do to carry on what the people want ....”
“e plebnista”
We have forgotten the meaning of “e plebnista”
Definitely ... and Trump’s DoJ has some unfinished business.
It should be thrown out...by the Senate. Actually, it should have never even been started.
But there are mixed signals about what Trump wants. Reportedly, behind the scenes, he wants a full trial. On the other hand, he has said in public he can go either way, short or long, whatever “they” (I presume he means the Senate) want.
McConnell says he and the Trump team will be in full agreement as to how to proceed.
It’s a little hard to figure out what the plan is, but I think it will be to let the House present its case, after which the Senate will decide whether or not to proceed, or just vote to acquit.
I’m just scratching my head here, not knowing what to expect...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.