Senate Trial of Impeachment Articles to Start

Incomplete is how I would phrase it.

I have no problem with fights over the limits of Executive Privilege and asking the Courts to clarify those limits.

I do have a problem with trump arguing that he can declare himself and all current and former employees absolutely immune from every congressional and criminal investigation and to simultaneously argue that Courts can never intervene.

 

Try rotating your phone and see if that helps.

But I can copy the post here:

The trade deal does not cover several of the longstanding U.S. concerns about China industrial policies, including how to rein in the billions in subsidies that China bestows on its state owned industries.

The ‘giant hole’ in Trump’s new China deal

 

SO -- are all the Democrat Senators running for the presidency right now going to RECUSE THEMSELVES...?

If Roberts doesn't INSIST on that blatantly obvious point, then the whole stinking circus in the Senate will be the worst travesty of 'justice' in American history!

(Parenthetically, I wouldn't trust 'Chief Justice' John Roberts as far as I could puke in 150 mile-per-hour hurricane head-wind)....

 

Ha, genius! Many thanks.

But to the article... of course it wont fix everything. It wasnt meant to. Theyd be negotiating for years if they were to sit down and address every imbalance between the two countries.

The article also points out that it may be better to have a little bit of something than a lot of nothing, and I tend to agree. This was a starting point. There's more to come.

 

I'm pretty sure you would want to go with a TAIL-wind in that scenario.....



We have no choice but to trust Roberts here... he is the highest ranking member of the Judiciary branch of the US and the JOB (if not the person) the founding fathers chose.

But, I always assumed we could trust the Attorney General of the US and see where that led us...

 

LOL it doesn't matter what Trump said or what you inferred, the President has rights and the constitution lays them out clearly in equal branches. If the dems had a problems with subpoenas not being enforced, like anyone else, they could have taken it up with the court. They knew this and withdrew them and I bet the article of impeachment pertaining to obstruction of congress will get dimissed quickly. It's a obviously the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

 

A) They did.
B) Trump responded by arguing that federal courts can never intervene.

 

And they didn't. Thus, the claim of executive privilege stands.
The Democrats impeached Trump for the legal exercise of executive privilege.

 

Once again, Trump has not claimed executive privilege. He has claimed Absolute Immunity.

 

I don't see a thread for the live proceedings in the Senate Chamber, so this thread works..

Oath's administered... Senators signing a book WITHOUT ceremonial pens (what a cheap bunch)...

Roberts' hair looks funny from the top camera.... a very odd bald spot he has...

 

Also, MSNBC reports 1 Senator MIA (Inhofe R OK) - No reason given...

I looked it up... he's 85, and only listed as the 4th oldest Senator... what a geezer fest...

 

They just adjourned until Tuesday..... why is Mitch delaying the process??? They have 2.5 days of trial they could get in before Sunday....

 

The Washington Post Livestream noted that when such things happen (a Senator not being there because he is sick or dealing with a family issue or whatnot), then the numbers required for the votes change as well. So, for example, if Inhofe was not there on the day that they voted for witnesses, Democrats would need 3 instead of 4 GOP to join.

 

IA caucus is Feb 3; by starting the trial next week and running it 5-6 days each week, three Dem Senators won't have much opportunity to campaign.

 

Would be interesting to see what sort of "family issue" would qualify enough to miss this event.... do you have to bring Roberts a note from home??

Bernie, Lizzy, and Amy could all catch a bad case of "Iowa fever" and have to miss a few days...

 

During which McConnell will hold votes on witnesses, rules, dismissal, etc.

 

Bah... if you haven't made your case PERSONALLY to EVERY SINGLE IOWA voter 6 times over by now, it ain't gonna happen for you...

 

And yet, that's where they will go.

 

LOL... man, I almost feel sorry for some of these people... it must feel like the walls are closing in from all sides

https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...ral-hack-hallway-dustup-manu-raju/4488421002/

Pro-tip Martha - "No comment" works a lot better and keeps you off of the front pages of your home state papers looking extremely paranoid...

Watch Perdue, immediately after McSally... he's wrong, of course, but he made a cogent case, even to the liberal hack from CNN... well done there...

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1217834308863434752?s=20

Or, in extreme danger, you can always go with this move...

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/11/01/congressman-headbutts-camera.html

 

It's difficult to defend that ****ing moron.

 

As a lawyer I would think you would know it doesn't matter what Trump says, the court is the deciding factor. DUH

 

Still, it's a little unsettling to see the DOJ making a clearly unconstitutional argument to a court of law...

 

Now we're to the DOJ? T was talking about Trump, acting like anything Trump or the Dems, say about subpoenas matter. The judicial branch makes the determination, the Dems decided not to let them yet accused trump of obstruction. I bet that article gets dismissed because it's a complete bs nonstarter without the judicial branch being involved and every person knows it.

 

This was a completely partisan process by the House, which deserves a completely partisan Senate process.

 

My beef with Chief 'Justice' Roberts is purely because he decided that Obamacare was legal even though it was as unconstitutional as HELL exactly as written, passed by Congress, and signed into law by the "Messiah".

It was, and everybody who wasn't a moron socialist knew it... so, what did Roberts do? He, himself, essentially REWROTE the damned thing to change it from being an unconstitutional MANDATE to a kind-of-sort-of TAX, which was not (NOT) what the Democrats had created at all! That made Roberts a rotten piece of untrustworthy SCUM as far as I was concerned. If a CHIEF JUSTICE is supposed to do anything, it's making certain that any act of Congress and the President that is blatantly unconstitutional does not become a law.

Oh, and BTW, the Supreme Court does not (NOT) create laws for the United States! But that is exactly what scumbag Roberts did in 2011....

Ever since 2011, when Roberts pulled this stunt, I've always wondered what the Democrats 'have on him'....