Because there’s a little known clause in the constitution called the orange man bad clause. It negates everything else isn’t here and defers to the DMC/MSM talkers as gospel. https://t.co/KZ6QpB4Vhd
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) January 17, 2020
37 comments:
That clause actually reads fat, unhealthy, orange, wanttabe first American dictator BAD.
Senators, abide by your impeachment oath
At the outset of the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump Thursday, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, mandated by the Constitution, required each Senator to swear an oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
Article I, section 3, clause 6 of the Constitution provides: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
The oath provides: "I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [Donald John Trump], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God."
In combination with the general oath to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies that each member takes upon being sworn in as a Senator, the oath makes explicit that in the context of an impeachment trial of the president, senators must be bound by an impartial duty to the country and the Constitution. Any and all political motivations must be put aside for them to fulfill their constitutional duties.
How each member interprets his or her obligations under this oath and how the Chief Justice enforces them will determine whether the Senate acts consistently with its constitutional responsibilities.
What then should be expected of the chief justice and the legislative body the framers of the constitution entrusted with this most solemn responsibility?
1. The chief justice must ensure that the trial is fair to the litigants. Chief Justice William Rehnquist ruled in the Clinton impeachment trial, "[t]he Senate is not simply a jury. It is a court in this case [too]." As such, he instructed that the House managers refer to the Senators as "triers of law and fact." (He referred to himself as "the Chair.")
While this is constitutionally correct, at the end of the process, the Senators must also vote to convict or acquit. To this end, and notwithstanding the dual role the Senators perform, Roberts should, at the outset, voir dire -- or question -- every Senator individually until he is satisfied that each can fulfill the obligations of the oath. This is especially important in this case where at least two Senators, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham, already have declared in essence that they have no intention of honoring the oath.
(McConnell said on Fox News: "Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can." And Graham has stated: "I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.")
If the chief justice is not satisfied with the answers he receives from any senator, he should excuse the senator unless a majority of the Senate (acting in its "judicial role") in a publicly recorded vote overrules his determination and provides a satisfactory explanation for its decision.
2. Each senator should undertake his or her obligation to "do impartial justice" without regard to political affiliation. It would be a betrayal of the oath to do otherwise. While there is no way to assure this and there is a legal and political tension in a presidential impeachment trial, at a minimum, the Senate deliberations should be held in private. An impeachment trial is too serious an occasion for the political grandstanding that public deliberations will guarantee. Some have argued that the vote to convict or acquit also be held by secret ballot (as in the case of ordinary juries) to allow senators to vote without fear of retribution, but I worry about the lack of public accountability this invites. It is something, however, the senators could consider it if they believe it will help them honor the oath.
3. The web page of the United States Senate, in discussing the Senate's role during impeachments, states: "The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official."
This requires that all relevant witness and documentary evidence that bears on the guilt or innocence of the impeached officeholder be brought forth and evaluated. This occurs every day in criminal trials across America, and has been the norm in every other impeachment trial conducted by the Senate. The oath requires nothing less.
Some have argued that the Senate should not fill in the evidence that the House did not bring forth to the Senate. This argument confuses a trial with an appeal. Trials are where evidence is heard irrespective of when the evidence was discovered. Appeals evaluate verdicts based on the evidence adduced at trial. The Senate sits as a trial body, not a court of appeals. No criminal court would tolerate a situation where newly discovered, relevant evidence acquired post-indictment was not admitted into evidence solely because it was acquired after the grand jury indicted. The Senate shouldn't either.
4. The Federalist Papers -- 85 articles and essays by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay -- were written in an effort to promote the ratification of the Constitution. In Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton argued that "there will always be the greatest danger that the [impeachment] decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt." To mitigate this risk, the constitutional framers placed the responsibility to try impeachments in the Senate. As Hamilton wrote:
"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel confidence enough in its own situation, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an individual accused, and the representatives of the people, his accusers?"
Accordingly, the oath requires that senators act impartially, uninfluenced by public opinion, without allegiance to the impeached official, or political party. Any senator who is seen by his or her peers or the chief justice during the course of the trial to be unable or unwilling to act impartially in accordance with the oath should be excused upon motion by a majority vote.
5. Given that the actions of the Senate are non-reviewable by a court, it is incumbent upon the Senate to ensure that the process is credible. This is the core obligation of the oath. In my view, nothing could do more to belittle the oath and undermine the credibility of the process (thereby denying the country the closure that an evidence-based verdict is intended to achieve) than to precipitously dismiss the charges. The American people are constitutionally owed a full and fair trial.
By strict adherence to the oath, each senator, as its steward, will ensure that her or his name will be recorded by posterity as one who proved him or herself as equal to the trust expected by the constitutional framers. History will record those who dishonor the oath as unequal to that grand trust. And that will be their legacy.
Dems legacy over this is in deep shit forever
The above is an opinion piece by Michael Zeldin, a CNN legal analyst who served as deputy independent counsel and later as independent counsel in the investigation into allegations that the administration of George H. W. Bush violated the privacy rights of candidate Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential campaign. He also served as a special counsel to Robert Mueller in the Department of Justice.
Totally unfair house process
CNN is so unfair they may not survive much longer.
Tell us more precisely what is wrong in what is stated above.
US Housing Hits 13 year High.
Erasing more of the Lost Years.
No defense witnesses in house, still unreleased testimony in house, false whistleblower withheld from testifying, no under oath testimony by case manager, improper coordination between whistleblower and prosecution, no alleged crimes in articles and it goes on.
When you lose Jake Rapper.
"CNN The Lead host Jake Tapper on Thursday criticized Democrats for touting evidence brought forth by indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, reminding viewers that the former Trump supporter has a “serious credibility problem.”
“We can’t ignore Parnas has a serious credibility problem,” Tapper said during a panel discussion on Parnas. “He’s under indictment for campaign finance charges. The foreign minister of Ukraine told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that he doesn’t trust a word Parnas is saying. And yet I see people out there on social media — Democrats — acting as if this guy is the second coming of Theodore Roosevelt or something.”
Every note, Every word , Every document that the Secretive Democrats collect must be turn over to the Trump Legal team.
It is known as "Dicovery".
And if the Democrats don't it is a US Federal Crime.
tt is also known as discovering the goat fucker is as useless as trumps old fat white ass!!!!!!!
Pelosi Releases Limited-Edition Replica Of Dentures Worn During Trump Impeachment
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Nancy Pelosi has announced a new creative fundraiser for Dems in 2020: auctioning off limited-edition replicas of the dentures she wore during Trump's impeachment.
The dentures have Pelosi's signature emblazoned in gold across the gums. Only 300 sets were made, so you'll need to jump on this opportunity to get this coveted souvenir from Trump's somber impeachment ceremony.
The bidding starts at $1,000.00 per pair, with all proceeds going to help Dems campaign on impeachment. Excited Democrats began bidding on the dentures, driving the price up into the tens of thousands of dollars immediately.
"This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a historic relic from this somber, very serious impeachment trial," Pelosi said in a speech, pulling back her lips to show the emblazoning on her official, original pair of historic dentures. "The plating on the signatures are authentic, 24K gold." You can even customize your dentures with "bling" like gold or silver teeth with messages like "ORANGE MAN BAD" or "IMPEACH 45."
The Speaker of the House also said that if you act fast, you'll get a collector's edition plate and coin absolutely free. You're also able to "buy it now" with financing options of just 30% of your income for the rest of your life.
Pelosi is also auctioning off a limited number of empty vodka bottles, the contents of which were consumed during the impeachment proceedings.
lol
"the facts have become undeniable even for the mainstream media. On Friday, the Washington Post published a piece by reporter Heather Long explaining that the predictions of consumers paying higher prices because of tariffs were just wrong."
The Left is being dragged kicking and crying to the truth.
Polling shows voters prefer Democrats on healthcare and Trump throws another temper tantrum.
Anonymous said...
No defense witnesses in house,
No? I thought there were
still unreleased testimony in house
so what? There was even more unreleased evidence held back by the White House
false whistleblower withheld from testifying
why should the whistle blower, who freely stated he had no firsthand knowledge, testify, wshen he made it clear he was only reporting what he heard others saying, which others repeatedly corroborated
no under oath testimony by case manager
??????
improper coordination between whistleblower and prosecution
what coordination did they come up with, a mere case of agreeing that the whistle blower only heard what others were saying?
no alleged crimes in articles
So it's not a crime to illegally withhold Congressional-approved military funds from a needy ally with a warning that it and a visit to the White House will only be forthcoming if an investigation into the Bidens were to be opened?
When does the Left attack Alan ?
"Dershowitz, an iconic civil libertarian and criminal defense lawyer, who circulates between the liberal redoubts of Miami, New York and the Vineyard, has emerged in the past year as the most distinguished legal defender of Trump."
It's entirely appropriate for Trump to hire a "criminal defense lawyer."
AND IT JUST KEEPS ON A-COMING
House Releases More Documents from Lev Parnas
January 17, 2020 at 8:17 pm EST
The House Intelligence Committee released materials Friday provided by Lev Parnas, who investigators say acted as a “direct channel” between Rudy Giuliani and individuals close to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Axios reports.
“The new materials detail conversations between Parnas and one of House Intelligence Ranking Member Devin Nunes’ aides, highlighting surveillance efforts against Marie Yovanovitch, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.”
Alan is a Constitutional.Law and Civil Rights Lawyer , also.
Stop looking so totally under informed.
At Least this Honest Socialist ,Bernie Sanders Understands in part why we have President Trump and not Kankles .
"The presidential hopeful sat down with the Times’ editorial board in December and suggested in the interview that President Trump won the election, partially, because many Americans feel that the political establishment on both sides of the aisle failed them, adding, “Maybe the New York Times has failed them, too.”
Saying the Lost Years failed the American people is correct.
But criminals LOVE to hire lawyers who have a good record getting criminals off free.
The Lost Years sucked.
Trump took on Biden's Friends the Commies in China and Won.
"China’s economy last year grew at the slowest rate in three decades .."
Wait, the Constitution I live under say the Procecution has to prove thier case. short of that I am Innocent.
Or do you want a different standard of Law in the US?
Jane was bad mouthing her.
"Martha McSally. ... McSally served in the USAF from 1988 to 2010 and rose to the rank of colonel before retiring. One of the highest-ranking female pilots in the history of the Air Force, McSally was the first American woman to fly in combat following the 1991 lifting of the prohibition on female combat pilots."
Blogger KansasDemocrat said...
Jane was bad mouthing her.
Because she is a veteran like you claim to be, does not preclude you or her from being flaming assholes!!!!!!! She acted like an asshole on camera....sad I thought the senate was supposed to be dignified.....she is not!!!!!
Who is Jane? Can't be me, 'cause I have not posted one single word about McSally.
KD lies. Again. Again. Again.
"I am not a crook."
-- Richard Nixon
"I did nothing wrong."
-- Donald Trump
KD lies. Again. Again. Again.
It is what he does second best....Being an unemployed leech sitting on his old white stupid ass comes first!!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
Jane with you using so many different monikers.
Yes you did Jane .
"
James January 18, 2020 at 8:18 AM
Who is Jane? Can't be me, 'cause I have not posted one single word about McSally.
KD lies. Again. Again. Again."
"James January 16, 2020 at 11:26 AM
GOP Senator Calls Reporter a ‘Liberal Hack’
Sen. Martha McSally (R-AZ) dismissed a CNN reporter as a “liberal hack” and refused to answer questions when asked about new claims that President Trump was involved in a pressure campaign in Ukraine.
___________
Be sure to do anything you can to get out of answering questions about new claims."
Post a Comment