It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Stormdancer777
Constitutional process also demands an impartial jury. Mitch Mc Connell and Lindsey Graham both pledged they would their violate their constitutional oaths.
On January 13, 1993, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist put his dictionaries away and settled any doubts about all three cases. On behalf of a unanimous court, he ruled that authority over impeachment trials “is reposed in the Senate and nowhere else.
originally posted by: HawkeyeNation
Time will tell but honestly I think it was all a ploy to give Trump black mark to the public. All we've heard is that DJT has been impeached. It seems like it was more of a publicity stunt than anything. So now we'll see if she officially submits the paperwork.
That’s why, according to Article I, section 3, clause 6 of the Constitution, senators, when sitting on a trial of impeachment, “shall be on Oath or Affirmation.” Of course, when elected to the Senate, all senators swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. But the senators, when sitting as a court, are asked to take an additional oath. It is a juror’s and judge’s oath—not a legislator’s oath.
Rule XXV of the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials provides the text: “I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”
So you hear obviously what you want to hear so that you can feel good about feeling so horrible for wanting someone to be brandished a criminal without having a fair trial. That is the most un-American thing you or anyone else can ask for, and may God have mercy on you if/when you are ever wrongly convicted of a crime.
Nancy P calling him a rogue president.
Where does she get off calling him that?
IV. When the President of the United States or the Vice President of the United States, upon whom the powers and duties of the Office of President shall have devolved, shall be impeached...
So, are you suggesting that if she had sent them over, the senate would have opted to skip Christmas break and hang out in washington to hash out the rules? Of course they wouldn't have and I am sure you are not suggesting that.
No, they haven't officially been passed to the Senate but the articles exist and have been ratified by vote in the House.
And all they have to do is officially deliver the articles and Trump then must be tried. The Senate cannot refuse to accept the articles.
I'm not sure how any delay has anything to do with the inevitability of the articles being officially delivered?
The house has the sole power to impeach. And there is very little in the constitution as to how that should be done.
originally posted by: face23785
originally posted by: HawkeyeNation
Time will tell but honestly I think it was all a ploy to give Trump black mark to the public. All we've heard is that DJT has been impeached. It seems like it was more of a publicity stunt than anything. So now we'll see if she officially submits the paperwork.
If that was the ploy, it didn't work. It's been a black mark for the Democrats in the polling.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne
That’s why, according to Article I, section 3, clause 6 of the Constitution, senators, when sitting on a trial of impeachment, “shall be on Oath or Affirmation.” Of course, when elected to the Senate, all senators swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. But the senators, when sitting as a court, are asked to take an additional oath. It is a juror’s and judge’s oath—not a legislator’s oath.
Rule XXV of the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials provides the text: “I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”
washingtonmonthly.com...
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: TheRedneck
But, depending on how you want to interpret the facts there could very well be high crimes and misdemeanors.
originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Honestly, it doesn't matter.
The Democrats got what they wanted which is to say they impeached Trump even if technically, the impeachment isn't really official. They will just go into the election season claiming Trump was impeached even if he wasn't.
The NPC leftist won't know the difference... they will then claim it is the Senate that is holding things up by not playing fair.
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Krakatoa
Interpreting facts is not the same as interpreting words.
I'll give you an example..
Fact one.. rudy had to friends that were helping him in the ukraine bit. They were arrested recently.
Fact two... rudy was butt dialing around the same time as their arrest and in one he was heard saying he needed a few hundred thousand dollars.
Fact three, which has recently been revealed. A month before the arrest, an oligarch by the name of firtash wired a million dollars to one of these guys wife.
Our govt has been trying to get firtash extradited to the us for some time now and I believe the country he is in finally agreed to allow the extradition awhile back. But, the us has not made a move to get him.
You can do a search and validate what I am saying, but I also believe that frick and frack was heading to the same city that firtash was holed up in when they where arrested and rudy has already said on air that he was planning on meeting up with them the next day.
I've tried to follow the logic some of the rights use to assert their "facts" and I believe these facts just as strongly prove that rudy and his friends were being paid by the oligarch to fund their exploits in ukraine. That maybe firtash has the means to produce realistic forgeries of documents to be used to put forward whatever story rudy would want to put forward and that was why he was heading there. And that maybe, there was an agreement to help rudy dig up his biden dirt in exchange for the trump admin neglecting to bring him to the us to face justice.
Of course on their own, they prove nothing, just like many of the "facts" the right uses to assert truth really dont prove anything. But it does seem to be another thread that could be pulled, more circumstantial evidence even when added to the rest. I mean how can you claim you are worrying about corruption in the ukraine when you have enlisted the help of rudy, frick, and frack who are not only using a corrupt oligarch as a source for their information, but getting money from him?