SCOTUS: No Articles of Impeachment or Trial Required for Senate to Acquit

The likelihood of true impeachment seems quite a lot like the odds of the Raiders making the playoffs: 12 games must be won by a certain team. Not all of those teams are favoured to win their games.

"Proof" is a condition established in court, historically a product of evidence and truth. "Proof" nor "truth" can be established by consensus. It's not a contest. The condition exists or it doesn't.

a reply to: LSU2018

...Slurring Nancy...

So it wasn't just me. Good to know.

I didn't know what to make of it then and still don't, but her speech definitely seemed off. Maybe alcohol, but maybe medication? Lack of sleep? Fear and desperation?

a reply to: BlueJacket

That's just a rub on the dog outside this fight, Blue. For
the sake of not drawing off the thread-- still, these
supplemental issues swirling around are being checked
out (we can hope) by Durham and his team. Meanwhile:
the SCOTUS has still ruled that the Trump administration's
pound sand carries a metric TON of political traction+truth.

It's also too likely I've read enough common law fairy tales and
watched enough Perry Masons to believe everything like due
process has since gone defunct from disuse: to make anything
sensible by now certifiably and legally insane. The fact most of
what's going on in DC is so nuts is because it's been normalized
into business as usual. Is this suicide being taped in Portuguese?

Thanks for this space and my respects to Clown World for this
amazing artifice of nutball we've got to work with.

I think finally-- maybe the Ten Commandments were straightforward
in order to circumvent controversy and argument. No wonder the
lawyers all want them removed... 9-0, huh? We'll see next year.
The best way to unseat a dictator is make her be herself on camera.
I hope we all survive the intervention.

That’s the propaganda machine at work with you once again. He simply wants to maintain the same fake news narrative he’s held since the start. This is all fake news they’ve been championing. A straw man. Distractions.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So basically the Senate can reference this SCOTUS ruling tell the Democrats to go pound sand, and either issue a vote on immediate acquittal or hold a trial and call witnesses that damages the other side...yeah that worked out well for them.

originally posted by: [post=24835089]Boadicea[/post.

My overall opinion stays the same: The Dems who are guilty of criminal conduct in Ukraine -- and their (adult) children -- are using a sham impeachment process to prevent and/or discredit an in-depth thorough investigation of their activities by Trump/Zelensky, and want to drag this process out as long as possible to muddy the waters, while using "impeachment" against Trump (and all Republicans) in the upcoming election year. The guilty do not want a fair and just trial -- the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth -- because their own criminal corruption would be exposed for the world to see.

And I fully expect "the guilty" includes McConnell, Never Trumpers, and other sordid and sundry Republicans.

I also fully expect this is be used as a political football and dragged out as long as possible. That gridlock may be for the best. I'm happy to let We The People decide whether or not to "impeach" Trump next November.
---------------------------------------------

FYI: These are the other sources used in the OP

Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

Nixon v. United States

You were doing great until the end bit where you basically said that you anyone not supporting Trump is guilty of the money scheming in Ukraine.

Never forget, TDS goes both ways.

a reply to: GenerationGap

You were doing great...

Thank you!

...until the end bit where you basically said that you anyone not supporting Trump is guilty...

Nope, not at all... hence the "sordid and sundry Republicans." In other words,. those Republicans for whom there isn't one common label.

And, publicly at least, McConnell is supporting Trump. So I don't limit the guilty to those not supporting Trump.

There's more than enough corruption and blame to go around.

... of the money scheming in Ukraine.

Ukraine, yes. For example, McCain and Romney have both been accused/suspected of dirty dealings in Ukraine. But we don't have to limit it to Ukraine. Heavens no! It's everywhere. It's insidious, nepotistic, and opportunistic.

Never forget, TDS goes both ways.

Indeed.

Now if only we could get those investigations done. I don't think anyone believes that the Bidens are the only guilty ones...

Let's start sending this information directly to @realdonaldtrump, his family, his associates, RNC, Alex Jones, Mark Dice, OANN, FOX, CNN (they will ignore) etc.

Let's do it!

originally posted by: ATSAlex
Let's start sending this information directly to @realdonaldtrump, his family, his associates, RNC, Alex Jones, Mark Dice, OANN, FOX, CNN (they will ignore) etc.

Let's do it!

They no doubt already know...

They just don't want US to know!

a reply to: Oleandra88

Well said!!

I don't like the man, never have, never will. However...

He's tried, successfully at times, not so much in others, to do his job. Many, if not most, Americans see that and will, and do, take that into account.

The economy is on the rise, and unemployment down both good things. Here in rural Alabama, jobs are going begging, as there aren't enough people apparently to fill the requirements... I'm told that most assuredly wasn't the case four or five years ago by people who were here then.

He's had to deal with an obstructionist House, and a Senate that is, in places, ambivalent at best about him. Frankly, it's amazing he's accomplished as much as he has.

I still don't like him, and never will. ...and I'd vote for a good alternative in an instant...unfortunately, the Dems aren't offering anything like a good alternative. Mostly bad, and worse. So guess what? I'm going to vote for the man, all while holding my nose, come November--barring any unforeseen idiocy.

originally posted by: seagull

I still don't like him, and never will. ...and I'd vote for a good alternative in an instant...unfortunately, the Dems aren't offering anything like a good alternative. Mostly bad, and worse. So guess what? I'm going to vote for the man, all while holding my nose, come November--barring any unforeseen idiocy.

I think he has been the only President that is literally checking off each of his campaign promises and here three years into it they have hardly changed even though he fights everyone in Congress on each one. I think Obama threw his whole list out right after Obamacare passed.

With that said, Trump has no filter, he vomits out any thought that pops into his head the second it does in either a tweet or vocalizing it.

Ukraine as example was not some 4D chess play, it was only Trump knowing he had to get concessions on investigating corruptions there as planned with the State Department. Then he was like oh ya filter OFF and how about the croaked Hillary's emails and creepy Joe's son, that would be horrible if true, oh and look into 2016 electron tampering I know old Obama/Hillary/Biden must got something there.

All in all though I can stomach his no filter if he keeps rolling as he does.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I could do without the "no filter" thing, too.

But, all in all, I can live with it--so long as he, as you say, keeps rollin' as he's rollin'. More good then bad. Contrary to what some seem to think.

a reply to: Xtrozero

All in all though I can stomach his no filter if he keep rolling as he does.

I give Trump much credit for plain speak and getting his point across as he sees fit. I can decide to agree or disagree. If it works for us, it works that much more with foreign leaders. Sometimes the filter just gets in the way. Sometimes the filter is just pandering. Sometimes the filter is used to hide corruption.

a reply to: Boadicea

SCOTUS doesn't need to intervene unless they are needed to settle a dispute between the co-equal branches, for example, if Democrats have no High Crimes and Misdemeanors than the potus can request for SCOTUS to settle it.

This is why Dems don't want to give it to the senate because they have not evidence of a crime. They just made a fake crime up that doesn't exist.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Sometimes the filter is used to hide corruption.

I think like sexual assault that has been marginalized to mean just about anything we find that now corruption is about the same. Like SA it is now use as an assault weapon and not a shield. When someone these days says corruption I need to really see the specifics before I jump on that bandwagon.

a reply to: seagull
When I meet him in person in a private setting I could tell if I like him or not. I never met him and I only know what the media gives me.

I know how it is when people talk about my back for the way I speak (the damn s), look, sexual preferences and other things that were made public about me without my consent.

Everyone gets a chance to win my attention or not in personal. Not giving much about the picture other paint about someone.

But if I had to give an answer: I lean towards not liking him. Then I know that everyone is shaped by their surroundings. Rich business man of his caliber do not get to where they for being average and normal. I can ignore this, as long as someone makes a good job and keeps his or her words.

He is not my president, why do I even participate? There are no good moderated German forums about politics. Also our politics is not that hard to figure out and boring. Then I know that most trends from the USA wash up at our shore soon after.

For example Merkel now uses Obama and Hillary tactics during election processes on some regions like voter polling questions and similar statistical processes. When I figured that out the puzzle pieces fell into place for me.

a reply to: Oleandra88

Agreed. I've never met him, my dislike is based purely on my perception garnered over the years. Who knows? I might actually like him in person...**shrug**

As for someone from overseas opining??

There are times when it gets irksome...OK, most of the time. But I also realize that, like it or not, what happens here, will, not might, but will effect the rest of the world. For good, or for ill, that's the sometimes sad reality of it.

So opine away!!!

a reply to: Xtrozero

I think like sexual assault that has been marginalized to mean just about anything we find that now corruption is about the same. Like SA it is now use as an assault weapon and not a shield.

Point well taken. Especially given this context of this impeachment farce.

When someone these days says corruption I need to really see the specifics before I jump on that bandwagon.

We all need to see the specifics. And there sure are a lot of filters used to keep the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth from the public. The corruption hides right along with the truth behind all the filters.

Oh what a tangled web they've weaved...

a reply to: seagull
I understand that irksome feeling.

Trying to keep away from politics but it is hard. It is so global today and the radical members who need to turn every thread into a political dick measuring contest, make it even harder.

I dislike the word opinion. I like the word impression more since most opinions, if keeping the eye open and unbiased, can change so fast. I do not see it as being a flag in the wind. There are things I have a strong opinion about, naturally. Not sure if it can be used like that but this is what my dictionary tells me.

I mean the single nuances that can change a whole story line. So before I make up my mind and talk myself into how correct my view is, I try to play devils advocate as much as I can with myself.

This way I avoid getting sucked into any political direction, group thinking and similar things.

a reply to: Boadicea

S&F

I’m late to the party here... but we just lived through the best decade humanity has ever had. President Trump’s term was the best part of that and that is quantifiable.

More people than at any point in human history are better off than they ever have been. Literally. Is that all Trump’s doing? Maybe not. Did he have a huge hand in that? Absolutely.

His predecessor did nothing. Particularly for Americans.

I’m happy with how things have turned out. I hope you are too. I can say, for the first time in a long time - if you’re not, that’s on you. Period.