Posted on 12/13/2019 11:20:41 AM PST by jazusamo
I pray you’re right and believe there’s a very good chance you are, FRiend.
The Republicans are going to be solid as a rock - just as they were with Bret Kavanaugh. Even Mitt Romney, who hates the President’s guts, won’t side with the Democrats on this one.
While the GOP Senate eventually confirmed Kavanaugh they were far from “rock solid” during the process. The Democrats practically ran Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing and jello comes to mind more so than a solid rock when assessing the GOP’s performance.
Ok, so you've pointed the finger at Pierre Delecto, Burr, Gardner, Murkowski, and Sasse.
The procedure for the “trial” is in the Senate rules, which the Senate may change. As the rules currently stand, the Speaker (Pelosi) will appoint impeachment “managers” who will act as prosecutors. However, it seems to me that McConnell could ram through a rules change depriving Pelosi of that appointment power. (Why the heck not?) Perhaps, the rules could be changed such that McConnell himself would appoint the managers... (Jim Jordan?)
“....and jello comes to mind more so than a solid rock when assessing the GOP’s performance.”
If they are rock solid as I predict, will you give them any credit? (I won’t hold my breath waiting).
“Misdemeanor” means a seriously bad attitude.
If the President, for example, decided to play golf every day instead of attending to the matters of government, that would be a misdemeanor in the original sense.
High Crimes, means crimes committed by a person at the level of government that they get to decide prosecution, or operate with supreme authority.
For example, in England, a commoner could not commit High Treason, no matter what they did, as they have no authority. An Ambassador, with the authority to make treaties, deciding to use that authority to sign away part of the country without good cause, fidelity, and appropriate consult or direction, would be an act of High Treason.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors, are put together. Those all refer to serious acts.
The House is supposed to use good judgement. They are being frivolous here.
Today, a misdemeanor is a crime. Maybe it was something else back then I don’t know.
I understand that. I’m referring to what it used to mean.
Another way to look at it is a misdemeanor (mis-demeanor) is an offence, vs. a crime, which came to be referred to as a felony.
“High Crimes and Misdemeanors” that is an “and” not an “OR”
Very good point. More research needed here to try to find original intent. The plain language seems to point to crime being a requirement for impeachment. I’ll see what comes out of my research.
You're wrong. Removal of President Trump would mean the total destruction of the Republican Party, and the Republican senators know that.
They have already admitted that that is their plan...........This crap ain't ever going away now so long as a Republican is the president..
They have set the precedent and revealed themselves to the entire country. The Constitution means nothing to them and if they should happen to regain the presidency, the senate and the house, good bye every civil liberty we currently have............They have become rabid for power
“It needs to be tried fairly in the senate.”
Oh I think many of us look forward to that, and calling lots of witnesses the House tried to protect. Unlike in the House, facts will be more important than hearsay in a Senate hearing.
Impeachment was intended to be nonpolitical, but in practice, it usually divides largely along political lines.
The measure of just how political it is, is how bipartisan the vote is.
Since House impeachment only requires a simple majority, it is FAR more likely to be political - the majority party can easily pass articles of impeachment with an entirely partisan vote.
By contrast, Senate conviction and removal requires a 2/3 majority, so unless the opposition party had more than 67 senators (extremely rare), a purely partisan conviction would be impossible.
Only the ones that survived the storming mob to get to the rope.
Right on! They are in the same league as Stalin or Hitler or Mao or Castro, et al.
And they want our guns? LOL
Lindsey Graham has all the power necessary to hold hearings to eliminate the Deep State. He can subpoena witnesses and have the Supreme Court authorize them.
I believe that it would be a mistake to turn an impeachment trial into such a vehicle. This would give the Dems the cover of claiming that their wish to call witnesses was of a special sort due to the extreme importance of the impeachment process. They could well force the testimony of every person in the Trump administration or put them into the poor position of having to ignore the Supreme Court or to take the fifth.
I believe that there is more protection for Executive Privilege outside of an impeachment proceeding. Otherwise, we turn an impeachment trial into the world's most powerful fishing expedition.
I don't believe that the Supreme Court would interfere if the Senate decides to simply dismiss the matter. The Chief Justice's role would simply be to certify that a majority of the Senate voted to dismiss.
Relax. Tens of millions of rifles say Trump is going nowhere.
Then it would be up to us to gather our arms and take a “little hike” through their neighborhood.
It’s what the 2nd Amendment is there for.
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.