how about this.... I’ve advised the remedy per the constitution. it isn’t ‘hidden’, or buried in language that’s open to interpretation. Is this political theater constitutional? It would be more interesting if you’d actually take a stand rather than the appeasement approach where you assign blame to all is it constitutional? Yes/No?
Second the NO. If anything, Biden and Harris should both be impeached the day after the GOP retakes the House and Senate for abuse of power and bastardization of the Constitution. That would put the new GOP House Leader ... probably McCarthy as the new President.
On another note .... where was the outrage when AOC and the Green Mafia stormed the capital and occupied Pelosi's office? It was perfectly ok back then .... now it is an impeachable offense. FLASHBACK VIDEO: AOC Literally Stormed the Capitol in 2018 With Protesters By "Proudly" Joining Raid of Nancy Pelosi's Office... (100percentfedup.com)
Damn Shane I didn’t know you are a constitutional scholar. I’m not an attorney but as I’ve said there’s precedent and I’ve read opinions supporting both sides. Perhaps we’ll find out if it gets in front of the SCOTUS....if they do accept an appeal. As I’ve said I think it wrong. Finally it’s not appeasement to find error on both sides if that is the case as it is here.
all means all and that's all all means... where, in your opinion, is the error? in the constitution or in the opinion you've cited?
The error in his opinion is .... - The TEXT of the Constitution is plain that the Chief Justice is required to preside over the impeachment of a POTUS. - The Impeachment by the House occurred while DJT was President, thus it is a Presidential Impeachment. - THUS .. regardless of how you slice it, this is an impeachment of POTUS and requires the Chief Justice. - The Chief Justice has insinuated that this is not a case he intends to take up, ie., this is not an impeachment. - Since the Impeachment in the House occurred while DJT was POTUS, leaky Leahy is not qualified to preside. Even if you accept Winston's Precedent, using a Secretary, which does NOT require the Chief Justice, his opinion does not take into account that the Chief Justice, not leaky Leahy, must preside over the proceeding involving a POTUS. So, while in the 1800s, an impeachment occurred after the fact, under a circumstance that does not require the Chief Justice, it does not apply if the Chief Justice determines this case does not merit his presence. It becomes a trial of a private citizen, where the correct venue is the courts, not the Senate.
You can't argue with winston. He's omb at all cost and is not capable of seeing legit, and sensible reasoning like you cannot hold an impeachment of the POTUS against someone that is NOT the fucking POTUS! Just a complete moron. Someone else posted it, the penalty for a successful impeachment trial is the removal from office. Well beings he is not in office and they already know they don't have the votes this is now identity politics and also, by the letter of the Constitution illegal. You don't have to be a lawyer to read.
At the end of the day does it really matter who presides? The Dems don't have the votes & they know it. Seems like much ado about nothing imo.
I Believe they intend to try and make sure there i no way Trump would think about running again or at least make him less of a viable candidate for the Republican Party.
