Your idiocy is magnificent. Your contention is that there were no crimes enumerated until federal criminal statutes were enacted. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry
- Thread starter Big AAPL
- Start date
There were plenty of state laws and English law of course but when the constitution was ratified there were very few federal laws beyond piracy and counterfeiting. So, unless you’re arguing that the founders intended for impeachment to be based on the many states’ laws, which is absurd, or limited to piracy, counterfeiting, etc, you should agree “high crimes and misdemeanors” was not based on existing statutory law because little to none existed.
Just need 51 votes to have witnesses......just need 4 GOP Senators to agree...there is no litigation if 51 Senators agree to witnesses. This is like teaching a child the ABCs
Hey dumb question here, and I know its probably been addressed before, but if there are witnesses, wouldn't the Pubs call in Biden, Biden Jr., and a couple of those Ukrainian gents? Of course I guess the Ukrainians wouldn't have to show up, but wouldn't they relish the chance to bring the Biden's in? Why would the Dems risk that?
-----and the litigation over executive privilege alone will take 9 to 12 months to complete as witnesses that were not included in The House inquiry and whom President Trump's team invokes EP on will each be challenged. ---You continue to not understand the process. ---Then there will be a challenge to the legality of the courts to be involved at all which will also take an inordinate amount of time. ---The Senate has sole power to try impeachments---They do not have sole power to compel testimony.
Yep.----and Dems will challenge. The best scenario is to have the trial the way it was intended---no new witnesses especially. That's the House's job, not the Senate's. All witnesses should have been called in The House Inquiry. They were in too big of a hurry up and wait though.------Mind you, a slowdown with litigation is what they want. They want it to drag out through the election and affect the election. Ironic isn't it?
no question is dumb even for a dumb cunt like you.
pubs have the votes to bring in Bidens now, they chose not to do it. the fact is even as guilty and corrupt as Hunter Biden (i hope he gets caught btw) is, the president still abused his power to ask for an investigation into his opponent by playing the Ukrainians. I hope both Biden and Orange go away, sacrificing Biden to gain credibility and electability capital is a plus for the Dems, it helps their other shitty candidates.
Yes, of course. That's what it's all about.
But it gets complicateder and complicateder along the way.
One scenario is that they horsetrade and Mulvaney and Bolton come in and the Bidens and the whistleblower come in and it is complete food fight.
And another is that they trade mulvaney and bolton for the Bidens and the rest but then mulvaney and bolton are blocked or tied up in exec privilege court issues so the dems offered up biden and the others but are unable to get the other sides witnesses.
But the real kicker that is in play is that Lindsey Graham, who is chairman of Judiciary Committee says he is going to vote against witnesses but that he definitely is going to have the bidens, and other ukraine players (especially in our government) before his committee regardless of what happens in the impeach process. In other words he saying, dont trade anything because you are already going to get the bidens or see them refuse which has a bad look to it and some legal consequences. And by appearing there before his committee they dont have to argue the relevance to the impeachment and all of that. That's the way to go. Everyone will pipe up say they will plead the fifth, they will no show, whatever, and I say beautiful. Just hold the hearings around all the allegations and if they dont want to be there to defend themselves, so be it. The committee can just play some Muzak or bring in some witnesses from Infowars and Breibart and the like to fill in any gaps.
Ok I'm confused.... "the Dems would challenge".... well, why wouldn't the Pubs challenge Bolton then? If you can challenge which witnesses get to show up, doesn't this render you guy's back and forward for the last 30 posts inconsequential? And who decides who wins the challenge?
Also, if the Dems drag things out, I'm sure Bernie and Pokey won't be too happy having to balance the trail with sitting through all the Senate bs. Right? Maybe its all a ploy to keep Bernie in DC and Joe on the ticket.
Edit: Ok I was typing when you answered TF.