Posted on 01/30/2020 7:43:33 PM PST by karpov
The Senate will acquit President Trump on both House articles of impeachment. That much even Adam Schiff knows. The Senate trial is now all about the election and impeachment precedents, which are two of many good reasons for cleaning up the trial distortions and wrapping up the show this week.
Start with the media claim that defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz said a President can do anything to further his re-election as long he thinks it is in the national interest. This isn’t what he said. The Harvard professor said explicitly that a President can be impeached for criminal acts. He could be impeached for soliciting a financial bribe, for example, or seeking a campaign contribution from a foreign source. He could also be impeached for exceeding his constitutional authority.
Mr. Dershowitz differs from the press in believing that a President cannot be impeached for acts of foreign policy that may be in his personal political interest but aren’t themselves impeachable acts. Presidents conduct foreign policy in what they think is the national interest, but they also hope it will be in their political interest. Presidents typically act from “mixed motives,” as Mr. Dershowitz put it, that are difficult to discern or to separate the high-minded from the self-interested.
It is thus too low a constitutional bar for the House to claim, as it does, that Mr. Trump can be impeached because Democrats think his motives were corrupt. The acts themselves must qualify as “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Mr. Trump’s acts don’t qualify—because asking aid recipients to investigate corruption isn’t illegal, and in any case the aid to Ukraine was delivered on time and no investigation of Joe Biden was started.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Nanzi doesn’t care.
She’s going to do it again, anyway.
I think the President’s team has very poorly communicated that House Managers are asking for TWO outcomes: (1) President Trump should be removed from office; AND (2) President Trump should never be allowed to hold public office again, meaning that he would NOT be eligible to run for President this year.
The President’s team hints at this when they talk about “removal from the ballot” and “interfering with the 2020 election.” But I have not yet heard them say, “They don’t just want to remove him from office; they want to prevent you from ever being able to vote for him again.”
I think if #1 makes people angry, #2 should enrage them, but most people just don’t know.
Why is no one talking about this???
Just heads up. Lamar will let decision be known within an hour
What a drama queen cuck Lamer is. Just say you want witness and be done with it, fool.
CSpan reporting Collins will vote for witnesses.
It’s a coup.
Not a trial.
VOTING NO!!!!!!!
Lamar is voting NO!!!
Bet Bernie, Warren and Clobachar are pissed. Goodbye Iowa! Lol!
That’s a wrap!
Okay, I take back he’s a cuck if news he voted no witnesses is right.
Lamar no, Collins yes and Mittens ... he wants to hear from Bolton! That leaves Lisa Murkowski.
Cut. Print! Everyone go home! :)
He may be still but at least he voted no tonight :)
Of course she will she has no life meanwhile Lamar is a no on witnesses he says he has heard enough doesn’t need anymore
So it’s gonna be a 50 50 tie
There’s no way he would have dragged this out if he knew there were already enough yeses.
This thing is over!
Biden actually lost ground in Iowa when he was the only one campaigning. LOL
Just said he’s voting “no.”
So apparently Democrats calling her office calling her Trumps Bitch worked. Quite possibly the worst US Senator since Joe Biden
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.