Trump Trial Begins - Guilty As Charged?

[Brian4Liberty]

Trump Trial Begins - Guilty As Charged?

After a bizarre pause in the impeachment proceedings, House Speaker Pelosi has finally decided to send the House-passed articles of impeachment over to the Senate for trial. Constitutional duty...or political grandstanding? And are they missing the whole point on impeachment?

[Aratus]

he is guilty of being stupid and/or greedy. imoho
he has yet to be hit by a third article however...

[Aratus]

going after DJT over what he wanted to do to the Bidens is like using the IRS to do what Elliot Ness couldn't quite,
when he tried to take down a big boss who was something of a control freak. a third article of impeachment might
open up the can of worms all over again, by summer, if Iran is again a focus for a very out of the loop CONGRESS...

[Aratus]

PAUL RYAN could have easily done to POTUS HiLLARY C what Speaker Nancy just did to THAHHH DONALD. Lets be fair.
Its unfair to try a guy again on the same charge, but until November of 2o20 we won't see much of a change in the ratio
of Democrats to Republicans in our House of Representatives. They can gather together another article & vote on it, i feel.

[Aratus]

i saw on my local news that nice young Mayor Pete is heading up to N.H for a campaign rally....

[Aratus]

Is SENATOR RAND pushing for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong trial with a slew of witnesses
because it easily keeps THREE of the top Democrats in D.C? whereas Senator Mitch's bright idea...is to

[Schifference]

Impeachment will soon be business as usual for all Presidents that have opposing party majority in the house.

[timosman]

Impeachment will soon be business as usual for all Presidents that have opposing party majority in the house.

We need a constitutional amendment to add POTUS eligibility for another term if the impeachment fails. The formula should be -

max number of terms a POTUS can serve = 2+ number of impeachment proceedings

[Aratus]

We need a constitutional amendment to add POTUS eligibility for another term if the impeachment fails. The formula should be -

max number of terms a POTUS can serve = 2+ number of impeachment proceedings

luv.... even better.... IMOHO if the total idiot is booted out of a term before the halfway mark, let the guilty party run again!

Some impeachment trials at the POTUS level can be very political. The U.S Senate often does not contain all human wisdom!

[Aratus]

luv.... even better.... IMOHO if the total idiot is booted out of a term before the halfway mark, let the guilty party run again!

Some impeachment trials at the POTUS level can be very political. The U.S Senate often does not contain all human wisdom!

BOTH ANDREW JOHNSON and WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON WERE HIT BY POLITICIZED IMPEACHMENT TRIALs. DJT=totalBloomin'idiot.

[Swordsmyth]

We need a constitutional amendment to add POTUS eligibility for another term if the impeachment fails. The formula should be -

max number of terms a POTUS can serve = 2+ number of impeachment proceedings

Just get rid of the limit.

[RonPaulRocksMyWorld]

Just get rid of the limit.

Seems risky if we get a President AOC when she turns 35, and we end up with a socialist left of FDR until she dies. Be careful what you wish for and all that...

[Swordsmyth]

Seems risky if we get a President AOC when she turns 35, and we end up with a socialist left of FDR until she dies. Be careful what you wish for and all that...

Term limits are worse than that risk.

The swamp can always find another frontman but we are hard pressed to find a President as good as Trump or better.

The swamp amended the Constitution to make sure nobody could stay in office long enough to undo what FDR had done.

[Origanalist]

Lol

Brinkley: American ‘Democracy Is Broken’ If Dems Don’t Get Their Way in Senate Trial

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...-get-their-way

[timosman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiE2gUT08A8

[Brian4Liberty]

Trump Trial Begins - Guilty As Charged?

Some highlights:

- Ron is annoyed by the charade being put on by Pelosi and friends as if they are somber and sincere (about the Constitution).
- ~9:00. This impeachment is a sham, they won’t impeach the President on real violations of the Constitution.

Daniel quoted from the following article:

That boast of killing the general "because of his horrible past" sent off bells and whistles in the Department of Justice. Trump's retribution argument does not legally justify killing a person who is not engaged in violence at the time of the killing, and, arguably, is a war crime.

Thereupon, Attorney General Bill Barr revealed that the DOJ had been consulted on the lawfulness of the killing and signed off on it if the general's attacks on Americans were imminent. Now that the imminence argument had been undermined by the administration's own folks — including the president himself — the attorney general argued that Soleimani needed to die as a deterrence to others pursuant to the old 2002 AUMF.

These shifting justifications are contrary to reason and cannot survive a simple cross-examination. When did we start killing generals from countries with which we are not at war? Never in our history. When did we start killing foreign generals because of their "horrible past"? Never in our history. How can the government use the 2002 AUMF, whose stated target was Iraqi WMDs, but whose true target was Saddam Hussein, as a legal justification to kill a non-Iraqi general 18 years later? Except in the minds of extreme administration loyalists, it cannot legally or rationally do so.

Why is truth always the first casualty of government violence?
...
http://www.judgenap.com/post/a-tangled-web-of-deception