Senate Impeachment Trial: After opening statements Trump will file Motion to Dismiss. Debate 2 days. Senate votes, Motion to Dismiss passes

[Jabbar + 465]

54 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

 

 

Quote

Yes, the House writes the Articles of Impeachment, then the Senate runs the Trial. Due to the extremely politicized nature of the current proceedings, if this ever does actually pass and Trump is formally impeached, there is little reason to believe this will come to anything other than a debate point during the 2020 elections (or used as a political stunt to obstruct the ability of the Senators to campaign. Yes, that's right, I know the obscurity in the constitution that prevents sitting US Senators from campaigning during an ongoing Impeachment. Primaries start in January... how many Democratic Senators are vying for a presidential run but will be knocked out by this. But that's just a conspiracy theory...)

How about this for a conspiracy theory.

I think the DEMs are happy their Senators will be out of the race during the trial.  The DNC did everything to knock Bernie out of the 2016 primary.  They know a person too far to the left cant win.  The Democrats will be all to happy to get Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren out of the race. 

If my dismissal theory plays out it might only be a couple of days.  

It gives the DNC's boy Biden clear path to Iowa and New Hampshire.

Quote

 

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Jabbar

[Otis11 + 551]

Lets dissect this: (My comments in red)

8 minutes ago, Marcin said:

@Jabbar@Jan van Eck I found more or less what I was looking for by just googling, it was the first result, from CNN, CNN, really?!?

I bolded the arguments that back the decision to dismiss the impeachment in Senate, in easy and clear way:

We asked Ray and Zeldin to assess the Democrats' case:

 BEGINNING OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN 2 LAWYERS

-----

Robert Ray: (1)Apparently, we're about to witness the first impeachment of a President that does not allege that a crime has been committed, despite the Constitution's text that impeachable conduct is limited to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" and that "trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." The "except" clause above refers, of course, to trial of impeachment before the US Senate.

The point being that House Democrats, in this impeachment inquiry, have jettisoned treason, bribery, extortion, and foreign campaign contributions as a predicate, under law, for impeachment. Instead, we are left with abusive conduct and an interbranch dispute over witnesses and documents. (2)The bar for impeachment has been lowered in an unprecedented way. Do you realize what this is saying? They're saying the democrats had to lower the bar for impeachment in order to pass anything against the President. This is undermining your argument, not supporting it.

---

Michael Zeldin: I disagree that the Constitution requires the commission of a crime as a prerequisite for impeachment. While I appreciate that there is debate among legal scholars on this point, I think the more convincing argument is that impeachable conduct -- "offenses" is the word used by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers -- relates to the misconduct of public officials in violation or abuse of the public trust irrespective of whether a crime is committed.

The late Charles L. Black, Jr. Sterling Professor of Law at Yale Law and author of the seminal work on impeachment entitled, "Impeachment: A Handbook,'' best articulates the appropriate standard for evaluating what meets the definition of a high crimes and misdemeanors in the constitutional sense: That is, offenses that are clearly wrong, even if not criminal, and in Black's words, "seriously threaten the order or political society as to make pestilent and dangerous the continuance in power of their perpetrator."

President Trump's alleged conduct in soliciting Ukraine to investigate his political rival and then withholding military aid until such investigation is publicly announced, violates the public trust and renders his continuation in office a danger to the Constitution. His obstruction of Congress in their investigation of his actions compounds the offense. The executive branch is a co-equal branch of government, his refusal to comply with unlawful subpoenas for an unlawful impeachment inquiry that hadn't even officially started at the time (and therefore can't make the subpoenas they issued) is grounds for nothing. 

---

Ray: I appreciate Michael's acknowledgment that whether the Constitution requires criminality as a prerequisite for impeachment is, at minimum, a debatable point. I have argued for some time -- indeed prior to the July 25th call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky -- (3)that a well-founded article of impeachment must allege both that a crime has been committed and that such crime also constitutes an abuse of power. Such a crime constitutes an abuse of power, abuse of power does not constitute a crime. High Crime or Misdemeanor is required for impeachment.

The House Judiciary Committee itself at least concedes, in a report authored by the majority staff, that while criminality and impeachment are separate paths, "commission of crimes may strengthen a case for removal [from office]" and that "the criminal law is not irrelevant" for purposes of impeachment. Not Irrelevant?!? It's essential! Read the constitution!

 

That said, (4)I find it constitutionally awkward to be arguing on the one hand, as many have -- including me when it comes to presidential misconduct -- that no president is above the law, and then on the other hand, that this President should be impeached without an allegation contained in an article of impeachment that he actually violated the law 

It seems like failing to allege criminality weakens the case for impeachment. And it sets a dangerous precedent for future impeachments by a majority of the House of Representatives that any abuse of power will do, irrespective of the rule of law. I don't see how that would, or should, be in the best interests of the country. Exactly - this guy is saying there is not grounds - constitutionally - for impeachment.

---

Zeldin: Robert is correct that commission of crimes can strengthen a case for impeachment, as we saw in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments. In this case, both articles of impeachment essentially allege criminal conduct. That's because criminal conduct is REQUIRED.

Article l -- Abuse of Power, alleges conduct which can be argued implicates criminal law violations. Specifically, it alleges that the President and his men engaged in a "a scheme or course of conduct that that... would... influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage." The allegation of a scheme or course of conduct tracks the language of the 18 USC 371; Conspiracy to commit offense or defraud the United States.

 

Conspiracy to defraud the United State requires an agreement of two or more individuals to defraud the United States and an overt act by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the scheme. As applied to this case, the conspiracy would be for the purpose of impairing or frustrating the lawful function of the Federal Election Commission to insure honest and fair elections. A similar Section 371 charge was filed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the Russia Internet Research Agency prosecution.

Article II -- Obstruction of Congress-- similarly alleges criminal conduct. That is, Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees (18 USC. 1505). Section 1505 outlaws the obstruction of the "due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House..." Violation of this statute carries a term of imprisonment up to five years in prison.

The President's wholesale refusal to cooperate with either witness testimony or document production requests transcends Robert's view that this aspect of the impeachment is merely an "interbranch dispute over witnesses and documents." It is tantamount to criminal obstruction.

While a criminal statute is not cited in either article of impeachment -- which it need not be -- the articles allege conduct that appears to meet Robert's underlying criminal conduct test. As such, the articles are consistent with past practices and do not set a dangerous precedent. False - Criminality is REQUIRED by the CONSTITUTION. See: US CONSTITUTION.

---

Ray: I don't know.(5) How hard would it have been to have added the words to the first Article of Impeachment, "... thereby constituting the crime of bribery, in violation of law." And, as to the second Article of Impeachment, "... thereby constituting obstruction of justice and the lawful functions of Congress, in violation of law"?

 

(6) I am left to assume that there must be a reason why crimes were not alleged: the proof is not there and, more importantly, the elements of those offenses cannot be established. Exactly - there was no crime in what he is accused of. And no grounds for impeachment. 

As historian Jon Meacham wrote in reviewing the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in the 2018 book "Impeachment: An American History," there are risks with drafting articles that don't allege crimes:

"To deploy [the weapon of impeachment] in times of great political passion but without a clear violation of law, however, risked (and risks) pushing the American system in a parliamentary direction -- a development that might have its virtues but which would be a definitive break from the original intent and the organic evolution of the constitutional order... Should he therefore have been impeached and removed from office? The verdict in his own time was no -- the decision to push him from the presidential chair should, Congress decided, lie with the voters rather than with lawmakers." Clear precedent that impeachment requires a CRIME.

---

Zeldin: The decision not to include specific words from modern criminal statutes, I assume, was intended to avoid having to engage in the debate that Robert's suggestion invites: namely, whether "elements of those [statutory] offenses [can] be established."

As we have discussed above, impeachment is a remedy intended to redress an abuse or violation of some public trust which, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, "relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." It is not like a trial known in our criminal courts requiring proof of specific statutory elements.

The impeachment of Andrew Johnson derived from a bitter policy dispute between Johnson, a Democrat, and the Republican-controlled Congress over post-Civil War reconstruction policies. This dispute, as Robert and Jon Meacham correctly point out, should have been resolved at the ballot box. Impeachment was a pretext to remove him from office.

To be sure, the prosecution of impeachments, as Hamilton wrote in Federalist 65, "will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused." The process must, therefore, be deployed sparingly and with just cause. The articles of impeachment returned against President Trump meet this test

END OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN 2 LAWYERS

 

So to summarize impeachment motion voted in House was bogus.

Senate should vote to dismiss.

Why, simple answer is: as no crime was alleged, longer answer is in 6 bolded points from the discussion of lawyers.

But guys it was not clear from what you were discussing, from partisan positions, and this is not a common knowledge.

 

Wow... wow.... Someone on CNN got it right. Zeldin is completely wrong. But Ray got it. Thanks for the find Marcin.

 

[Jabbar + 465]

13 minutes ago, Marcin said:

@Otis11 There were 3 pages of some generic, Republican, partisan discussion in this thread, like you guys have no clue what you are speaking about, and I am not inside your brains.

This lame discussion, made mine, a little bit emotional statements, justified.

Please refer to the points I bolded in my long comment above, I was looking for this plain and simple information why Senate wants impeachment case dismissed.

Congress has no case.

Like I said the President's attorneys will lay it out in plain English in their filing for MOTION TO DISMISS and will debate it with the Congressional prosecuters. 

 

[Otis11 + 551]

14 minutes ago, Marcin said:

@Otis11 There were 3 pages of some generic, Republican, partisan discussion in this thread, like you guys have no clue what you are speaking about, and I am not inside your brains.

This lame discussion, made mine, a little bit emotional statements, justified.

Please refer to the points I bolded in my long comment above, I was looking for this plain and simple information why Senate wants impeachment case dismissed.

So Marcin, where was I in the partisan discussion? Where have I come across as overly Partisan or Republican?

May the accusations leading that emotional statement possibly been overly broad in the people called out? (Particularly calling Jan out?!?)

Sorry if I came on strong, but there's been a growing trend to call people out and associate them with some discussion they haven't been on, or have only been tangentially involved in, and I don't really appreciate it as it's been happening to me a few times. If you want to tag me and request I get involved in a conversation I might be interested in, great! Thank you! But calling a whole group out when some on that list weren't involved?

I'd challenge you to show where I or Jan have been overly partisan...?

[Jabbar + 465]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

In fact in law there is the use of evidence as quaint as it might seem and in law there is a requirement to act on subpoenas so that justice may be done so your claims here are rather fanciful although it would be interesting to see how much you claim to know and have thus far misunderstood.

Remake, I do know the Senate Majority makes the rules.

FACT: The Senate rules voted on and adapted for the Clinton Impeachment trial were: 

1. Opening statements

2. Vote on Motion to Dismiss 

3. Trial 

I believe it will be similar this time with one change.  The Senate will allow debate on the Motion to Dismiss.  Probably 2 days. 

I am sure the Trump legal team wants to teach the public and the House why this Impeachment was a scam and what the Constitution is really about , not the DEMs revisionist make it up as you go along Constitution.

If not allowed to debate dismissal the DEMs will never stop bitching.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Jabbar

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

31 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Jan doesn't care anyway, he's googling shit about canola and ethanol probably.

Actually, that is exactly what I am doing!

[remake it + 288]

10 minutes ago, Jabbar said:

Remake, I do know the Senate Majority makes the rules.

Not at issue however what was claimed by Mr van Eck was simply untrue and you have not - as yet at least - said otherwise.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

21 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

So Marcin, where was I in the partisan discussion? Where have I come across as overly Partisan or Republican?

May the accusations leading that emotional statement possibly been overly broad in the people called out? (Particularly calling Jan out?!?)

Lurker readers may take note that Otis11 is a totally brilliant intellectual and knows and will always know much more about US Law than I do - and I know quite a lot.  Readers would be well advised to be properly respectful and pay attention.  Whatever Otis says, is going to expand your intellectual horizons. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 minutes ago, remake it said:

Not at issue however what was claimed by Mr van Eck was simply untrue and you have not - as yet at least - said otherwise.

And that is because he is smarter than you.  For and advanced Al bot, you still have remarkable failure gaps.  remember, your overseers are watching your handlers. 🤩

Edited December 19, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[Jabbar + 465]

12 minutes ago, remake it said:

Not at issue however what was claimed by Mr van Eck was simply untrue and you have not - as yet at least - said otherwise.

I did say and gave an example in the Nixon Impeachment where the court sided with the subpeona.  I know it's a very high bar.  I'm not a Constitutional lawyer and don't know the intricacies of the law. Much is probably up for debate.

Jan gave an excellent overview of the three branches of govt  (10 times better than I could have done)  and its Checks and Balances. You can learn a lot from him. 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Jabbar

[remake it + 288]

Your points will be addressed in turn.

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

Do you realize what this is saying? They're saying the democrats had to lower the bar for impeachment in order to pass anything against the President. This is undermining your argument, not supporting it.

The elements are clear and were argued at length during the Hearings and do not differentiate in quality.

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

 The executive branch is a co-equal branch of government, his refusal to comply with unlawful subpoenas for an unlawful impeachment inquiry that hadn't even officially started at the time (and therefore can't make the subpoenas they issued) is grounds for nothing. 

This is a nonsensical construct as during impeachments the House and Senate are not coequal although your idea that a subpoena issued by the House is unlawful it completely without merit.

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

Such a crime constitutes an abuse of power, abuse of power does not constitute a crime. High Crime or Misdemeanor is required for impeachment.

Please note first response above as the founding fathers were aware that other actions of a President could compromise the nation's security and such misdemeanors should call him to account.

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

 Not Irrelevant?!? It's essential! Read the constitution!

That's a flat out fail.

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

Exactly - this guy is saying there is not grounds - constitutionally - for impeachment.

Mere opinion and contradicted by many legal experts aside from the inclusion of "misdemeanors" in the constitution as a separate sense to "crimes."

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

Exactly - there was no crime in what he is accused of. And no grounds for impeachment. 

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

Clear precedent that impeachment requires a CRIME.

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

False - Criminality is REQUIRED by the CONSTITUTION. See: US CONSTITUTION.

See above.

Edited December 19, 2019 by remake it
misspelled "many"

[remake it + 288]

8 minutes ago, Jabbar said:

Jan gave an excellent overview of the three branches of govt  (10 times better than I could have done)  and its Checks and Balances. You can learn a lot from him. 

That remains to be seen as he is not taking the care necessary to be credible here whereas at least you are giving it an honest albeit rather slanted try.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, Jabbar said:

During the Nixon Impeachment process it was discovered that Nixon recorded certain  conversations.  I am not foliar with the case but for some reason these tapes were ruled not to fall under e ecutive privilege.  Nixon had to turn over the supeoned tapes.

United States v. Nixon - Wikipedia

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 minutes ago, Jabbar said:

I did say and gave an example in the Nixon Impeachment where the court sided with the subpeoa.

The tapes were passive footage, taken without the participants' knowledge.  Nobody knew that Nixon was this total paranoid who taped everybody.  The tapes did not constitute, and did not qualify as, "personal papers" or even internal memoranda of government operations. If they were, then they would be quite immune, unless the President waives that executive privilege, of course  (which is quite unlikely among Presidents generally.  Nobody does that.). 

If the tape recorder machine were sitting on the conference table and everyone around it was instructed to speak into the microphone, then I suspect a good argument could be made that the tapes were "contemporaneous notes to file, made electronically," and such notes would be quite immune to probing  I suggest it was the secret nature of the one-way recording that made them vulnerable. 

You don't have those situations here. You do have some dubious characters running around, with seriously tainted reputations, and to suggest that those fellows will be the foundation for some impeachment is beyond silly.  So this attempt, which let's face it, is totally partisan, is going to fail, and make the Democrats look ridiculous.  It is a commentary on just how far removed from reality those California Democrats are, that they take this seriously.   the rest all laugh at the ludicrous nature of the effort. 

And remember:  I am a committed Monarchist, not a republican. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, remake it said:

That remains to be seen as he is not taking the care necessary to be credible here whereas at least you are giving it an honest albeit rather slanted try.

Folks, I think the Bot doesn't like me any more.  Oh, well. 

[remake it + 288]

6 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

So this attempt, which let's face it, is totally partisan, is going to fail, and make the Democrats look ridiculous.  It is a commentary on just how far removed from reality those California Democrats are, that they take this seriously.   the rest all laugh at the ludicrous nature of the effort. 

Irrespective of internal US machinations there are billions elsewhere who will see that the President - like him or not as per germane senses pre-WWII - has put himself above the Constitution and the next step on these slippery slopes is to abuse that privilege and become dictatorial as history shows time and again.

[Papillon + 485]

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

Not sure if this is what's happening here as I don't know Papillon's background, nor do I know a sufficient number of languages to know where else this might occur

Thankyou for your post sir, I appreciated your views a great deal. For some background I am eighty four and half English and half Japanese. I learnt English many many years ago from my father and lived in New York, London and close to Tokyo by the time I was six.

The use of 'sir' is merely out of politeness, and it seems to have become a rather comical or notable issue here, but due to my age, as well as respect for others, I will not be halting this as it is rather ingrained in me and my conversations with people round the world over the years.

I have read recently from Mr van Eck along the lines of ''users will benefit from discussion with you'', so I look forward to further conversing in the future. With respect, Papillon. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

I suspect a good argument could be made that the tapes were "contemporaneous notes to file, made electronically,"

You can argue that all you want, I agree, as the average American will undoubtedly have no idea what you're talking about. 

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

And remember:  I am a committed Monarchist, not a republican. 

LOL you always say this and live in a country with no monarchy anyway 🤣

You are also an Edamist and so have questionable opinions. 

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

I think the Bot doesn't like me any more

Yeah you were such buddies before that comment 🤣

Edited December 19, 2019 by Guest

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 12/17/2019 at 4:25 PM, Jabbar said:

Supposed to start first week in January. Everything said today ( and probably tomorrow during Impeachment vote) looks like a precurser for Republican's Motion for Dismissal". 

THE President's Legal Team will turn the tables on Dem Majority.  EFFECTIVELY PUTTING THE DEMs ON TRIAL. 

No Impeachment trial, No additional witnesses , No bull  . . . Trump wins.

Democrats will scream foul and cover-up , but nothing they can do to stop it. 

Trump will say he wanted trial but fellow Republicans suggested time better spent on trade, more jobs, legislation, more conservative judges.

Dismissal will pass with 51 Republican voting to dismiss.  Everyone goes back to work.

Dems won't stop. They will think of something new.  

I think part of Democratic grandstanding is to occupy TV coverage time and take the IG Horowitz report and upcoming  AG Barr and Federal prosecuter Durham's investigation off of the headlines. 

The Barr/Durham investigation looks like good timing for Trump. Probably finished Spring/Summer 2020 just months before election day.

Barr/Durham not directly related to Ukraine impeachment , but indirectly. Could seriously damage Democrats and put a pall over their hopes for 2020 election win.

POST BY BOB D     (below) 

A great article   "What Happens After Impeachment"

https://www.history.com/news/what-happens-after-impeachment

The last paragraph confirms Jabbar's dismissal argument.

The Impeachment of President Donald Trump started during the Presidential campaign and it won't end after the President is acquitted.  Dismissal is a great option if you want to get this done quickly.  I don't.  I want a pound of flesh. 

The Republican Senate should employ similarly unfair rules for the Trial as the Democrats used on the Republicans in the Impeachment. 

Witnesses should be called who can bring the whole charade into the light.  The process that lead to Special Prosecutor Mueller needs to be investigated.  Hillary and Obama campaigns paid law firm Perkins Coie millions to funnel cash to Fusion GPS who hired Steele to produce the infamous and totally fabricated Steele Dossier.  

The Washington Post reported last week that Perkins Coie, an international law firm, was directed by both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to retain Fusion GPS in April of 2016 to dig up dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump. Fusion GPS then hired Christopher Steele, a former British spy, to compile a dossier of allegations that Trump and his campaign actively colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 election. Though many of the claims in the dossier have been directly refuted, none of the dossier’s allegations of collusion have been independently verified. Lawyers for Steele admitted in court filings that his work was not verified and was never meant to be made public.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/29/obamas-campaign-gave-972000-law-firm-funneled-money-fusion-gps/

FISA Warrants     FBI/CIA    Hunter Biden     Schiff / Whistleblower Ciaramella

Let's take a flamethrower to DC. 

That ought to amuse the rest of the world.           

I want Schiff, Hunter Biden, Mueller, Comey, Clapper, Ohr, Rosenstein, Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella on the stand. 

 

The Democrats' attempted coup started long before President Trump was ever nominated. There are a lot more threads to this cabal that you have not mentioned. To get the even larger picture see 

Critical Information on the Trump, Obama and   Hillary Investigations

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1choW_wq0D5DfjRPjqLlAkfxCnnVJhRzrHeXppE6D4E8/edit

[remake it + 288]

12 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

The Democrats' attempted coup started long before President Trump was ever nominated. There are a lot more threads to this cabal that you have not mentioned. To get the even larger picture see 

Trump has now been impeached and that taint on him is forever so your idea that digging up past irrelevances is neither useful nor on topic.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, Papillon said:

Thankyou for your post sir, I appreciated your views a great deal. For some background I am eighty four and half English and half Japanese. I learnt English many many years ago from my father and lived in New York, London and close to Tokyo by the time I was six.

The use of 'sir' is merely out of politeness, and it seems to have become a rather comical or notable issue here, but due to my age, as well as respect for others, I will not be halting this as it is rather ingrained in me and my conversations with people round the world over the years.

I have read recently from Mr van Eck along the lines of ''users will benefit from discussion with you'', so I look forward to further conversing in the future. With respect, Papillon. 

Keep the sir, Sir.  I find it refreshing in a way.  Nothing at all wrong with politeness and respect.  Kudos!

[Jabbar + 465]

16 hours ago, Jabbar said:

 

The President's Legal Team will turn the tables on Crazy Dems.  TRUMP WILL EFFECTIVELY PUT THE DEMs ON TRIAL. 

I hope Trump puts Allan Dershawitz on the legal team.  It will be the first TV worth watching.  Dershawitz will put on a lesson on the U.S. Constitution unlike anything you have ever seen.

Now there is a rumor that the Dems will pass the Impeachment in Congress and then Nancy never forward it to the Senate.  That would be a Constitutional travesty.  I don't know if that's legal. 

I'm done trying to reason with logic to discuss Impeachment with you. Happy holidays and a happy new year.

See ya.

 

I TOLD YOU SO YESTERDAY

RUMOR IS TRUE.

"Now there is a rumor that the Dems will pass the impeachment in Congress and then Nancy never forward it to the Senate.  That would be a Constitutional travesty.  I don't know if that's legal." 

Right after Impeachment vote Pelosi said she might not send the Impeachment Articles onto the Senate ! 

This is new ground .  Don't know if she can legally hold up.

The question is why ?

1. Pelosi might say Senate is not fair.

2. DEMs don't want the Bidens, Whistleblower Ciaramella, Schiff  and other to have to testify.

3. DEMs would be further embarrassed. In front of the Country and Chief Justice Roberts. The Senate hearing would be fair.  There is no case , can't provide hearsay, presumptions, lies.  

4. I think the basis for the whole Impeachment push has been a diversion from the unlawful activities of the last Administration.  From Obama's U.N. ambassador unmasking 200 Trump campaign employees to Hilary's Fusion GPS dossier, and so much more.  Also all the unlawful acts by Comey, Brennen, Clapper could be brought up.  .   .   .   .  list goes on and on.

5.  Also Democrats get to keep the Impeachment going.  Subpeona more people.  Drum up more false charges , hold off till confuse people and create a diversion for when the Attorney General Barr and Federal Prosecuter Durham's criminal investigation are reported later next year.

The DEMs might be getting a whiff of the Barr/Durham investigation going up the chain of command as to criminal activity in the previous Administration, Justice Department, FBI, Intelligence , etc

What a scam.  What scum.

I think the truth will finally come out.

What's amazing to me is how most of the mainstream media supports these lies and false narratives.  Also, how can so many people believe this crap.  Are they what you call low information people. 

The U.S. democracy is not as stable as they like to project. I truly believe Nancy Pelosi will go down in infamy as the purveyor of this fraud. 

I feel sorry for the United States. 

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Jabbar

[remake it + 288]

4 minutes ago, Jabbar said:

I feel sorry for the United States. 

Never a more true sentiment.

[Jabbar + 465]

22 minutes ago, remake it said:

Never a more true sentiment.

Bot go bother somebody else.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Jabbar

[remake it + 288]

31 minutes ago, Jabbar said:

The question is why ?

You have asked a question based on a flawed assumption and the remainder of your post was another interesting read from the X-files.