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.
so yeah they can and its been done before but a lengthy trial in the senate has its advantages
The Senate has options for scuttling the impeachment process beyond a simple refusal to heed the House vote. The Constitution does not specify what constitutes a “trial,” and in a 1993 case involving a judicial impeachment, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Senate’s “sole power” to “try” means that it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding. Senate leadership could engineer an early motion to dismiss and effectively moot the current rule’s call for the president or counsel to appear before the Senate. The rules in place provide at any rate only that “the Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses”: they do not require that any other than the president be called. Moreover, the Senate could adjourn at any time, terminating the proceedings and declining to take up the House articles. This is what happened in the trial of Andrew Johnson, in which the Senate voted on three articles and then adjourned without holding votes on the remaining eight. This discussion does not engage in depth with all the parliamentary possibilities and intricacies. But it is sufficient to say for present purposes that, if the House of Representatives were to impeach the president, Senate Republicans would be in a position, if so inclined, to scuttle any trial.
But such a duty is not the same as a clear-cut constitutional obligation expressed in the text, and, depending on events and their political impacts, the Republicans may be motivated to exploit the difference. If a Senate majority can readily enough accomplish the result of altering its rules and sidestepping a trial, then the opposition can only respond to this initiative through the application of public pressure and the threat of harsh electoral justice meted out in the next election. No one disputes that there is no judicial remedy or other means of enforcing the constitutional duty that Tribe identifies.
originally posted by: Notoneofyou
A couple of tidbits found while looking into this.
And there is also this article which attempts to breakdown and link the imf funds flowing through the ukraine to many attached to clinton/ Obama cabal.
link to article
If someone could clean up the first image that would be great.
I have no apps that will do a decent job of it.
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas
or they could do what i think they are gonna do and "have a trial" but have it last 5 minutes where they just call for a vote all the republicans say not guilty and were back to where we are now dems waning to impeach and republicans saying NOPE
i can source the other claims as well if you want but figured this may be the one you would question the most but good luck beating him at the ballot box with the candidates the dems are running currently female or otherwise www.politico.com...
He’s slowed down processing of legal immigrants, almost doubling average wait times for those applying for green cards, employment visas, citizenship, and other benefits by the end of 2018. And he’s slashed the refugee admissions cap to a historic low of 18,000, down from 110,000 just two years ago. Some within his administration want to go even further. Miller has been the architect of sweeping administrative changes that aim to keep out all but the wealthiest immigrants.
According to a POLITICO/Morning Consult survey released on Wednesday, 56 percent of voters expect the president to be reelected next year, including 85 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of independents. By comparison, more than a third of Democrats (35 percent) say the same.
originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: ErEhWoN
why on earth would they ask him to resign? he is their golden goose appointing 2 scotus judges and over 150 federal judges ,illegal immigration down 65% ,stock market doing amazingly well to record levels actually ,gun control cases before scotus for the first time in 10 years that could roll back dem gun control efforts in at least 5 states . with a probale two more scotus picks in term 2 (3 if Clarence Tomas resigns under him) and his trumpy personality proving the perfect foible in case things start goign wrong they can just blame trump for anything and the party survives + throw in record fund raising for the RNC and he is again the republicans golden goose
as far as a female winning in 2020 who do you think is the one that will beat him? Kamala Harris who's polling lower then skim milk(around 1-2%)? Tulsi Gabbard who the DNC is already throwing under the bus and calling a "russian agent"? or Elizabeth warren who wants to tax the bejesus out of Americans pander to illegals who's meme team is named after a massacre by natives of white settlers?
outline.com...i can source the other claims as well if you want but figured this may be the one you would question the most but good luck beating him at the ballot box with the candidates the dems are running currently female or otherwise www.politico.com...
He’s slowed down processing of legal immigrants, almost doubling average wait times for those applying for green cards, employment visas, citizenship, and other benefits by the end of 2018. And he’s slashed the refugee admissions cap to a historic low of 18,000, down from 110,000 just two years ago. Some within his administration want to go even further. Miller has been the architect of sweeping administrative changes that aim to keep out all but the wealthiest immigrants.
According to a POLITICO/Morning Consult survey released on Wednesday, 56 percent of voters expect the president to be reelected next year, including 85 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of independents. By comparison, more than a third of Democrats (35 percent) say the same.
What is now being suggested is that a Ukrainian MP claims Zlochevsky was named in a “signed suspicion” which is wing suggested is like a criminal referral in the US
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Notoneofyou
What does this have to do with a fake news story about an investigation involving the Bidens?
originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
If someone could clean up the first image that would be great.
“These two both are professional disinformers,” Aslund said. “This is generally known in Ukraine. This is not outstanding news. Anybody who’s anybody knows about these two. They are not credible.”
“After you testified, Chairman [Adam] Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president of the United States because of your testimony and if you pull up CNN today, right now, their banner says ‘Sondland ties Trump to withholding aid,'” Turner said. “Is that your testimony today, Ambassador Sondland? That you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to the aid? Because I don’t think you’re saying that.”
“I’ve said repeatedly Congressman, I was presuming,” Sondland replied.
“No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?”
“Yes,” Sondland responded.
“So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?” Turner pressed.
“Other than my own presumption,” Sondland replied.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
I don’t mean to spoil anyone’s fun, but Pelosi has invalidated the WHOLE THING in a memo to her caucus in which she states that they have to impeach because they can’t trust the Electorate.
“Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?" House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., asked at one point in Tuesday's afternoon hearing.
Former National Security Council (NSC) aide Tim Morrison: "No."
Former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker: “No."
Later, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., covered similar ground in asking the witnesses about Trump's fateful July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky: "Mr. Morrison, you were on that call, and there was no quid pro quo, correct? No bribery? No extortion?"
"Correct," Morrison replied in response to each question.
"And, Ambassador Volker, I presume you got a readout of the call. ... Was there any reference to withholding aid? Any reference to bribery? Any reference to quid pro quo? Any reference to extortion?"
"No, there was not," Volker replied, again and again.
“Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?" House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., asked at one point in Tuesday's afternoon hearing.
Former National Security Council (NSC) aide Tim Morrison: "No."
Former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker: “No."
Later, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., covered similar ground in asking the witnesses about Trump's fateful July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky: "Mr. Morrison, you were on that call, and there was no quid pro quo, correct? No bribery? No extortion?"
"Correct," Morrison replied in response to each question.
"And, Ambassador Volker, I presume you got a readout of the call. ... Was there any reference to withholding aid? Any reference to bribery? Any reference to quid pro quo? Any reference to extortion?"
"No, there was not," Volker replied, again and again.
originally posted by: ErEhWoN
a reply to: Grambler
He admits trump told him the opposite, that he didnt want a quid pro quo.
Yeah, AFTER the whistle blower complaint came out.
Of course he would say that, they knew they were being watched then.