The Defense Rests: GOP Leaders Reportedly Considering Not Calling a Single Witness

Not what he said. It said it met the minimal very low requirement to start the investigation based on the evidence he had which of course was immediately rebuffed by the US Attorney who is heading the criminal investigation into the matter and then went on to testify how the investigation and continuance of the investigation was never justified and in fact was a fraud and a fraud was committed on the courts to keep it going.

 

How do you extort someone when you never made the extortion and the person alleged to have been extorted says they were never extorted.

 

Yes so let's have the investigation if it has not already begun and Trump was right to request the assistance of Ukraine in the matter. What was he doing and did it require he register.

 

At what point in that line do you see "because you won't stop the investigation?"

 

So yes, the investigation was legally justified. Thank you.

 

Nope... Open here first, THEN request assistance...

In addition to impeachable, Trump can't even get the order correct...

I have no problem if the DOJ opens an investigation into Hunter Biden... But as was proven yesterday, you better have a valid predicate to do so...

 

Sure buddy.

Which the SCOTUS only has done once, to my knowledge, Nixon Vs US it's result wasn't known until 20 years later. Not immediate, and ruled that

The head of the SCOTUS =/= the SCOTUS .

Back to the original point -

This:

has no precedent

And you have failed to refute this:

 

WUT??!?

 

There is no stipulation to that and we had the probable cause.

 

The start of the investigation then Crossfire Hurricane and the FISA warrants and it went off the tracks all the way to criminal acts and NO justification in fact the only thing justified was ending it.

 

ROFL what entrapment? Clinton committed his initial felonies in the Paula Jones deposition, actually even before that.

 

Well, the Schiff report will eventually confirm or refute that..

 

Smart ones don't anyway. If Trump didn't hamfist this so bad the house wouldn't even be involved, he'd be free to focus on a great economy and the Bidens. Instead here we are.

 

No. I never used the word all.
I did say the R's large group has been the religious right. If you read what I posted.

Sin is a man made concept. It's subject to interpretation.

 

Beating Hillary isn't a crime, that's the only thing liberals are really charging him with, there isn't a single criminal act in the articles...

 

In the infamous phone call, Trump referenced the Attorney General as a point of contact when mentioning the Bidens.

 

First of all, I never suggested the 'judicial branch needs to approve an impeachment', that's your own strawman.

And sure, the Chief Justice is specifically called for to PRESIDE over a trial of impeachment in the Constutiton, but SCOTUS and the judicial branch clearly have no role in the process.

That's logical.

As to Nixon, he received a subpoena to turn over the tapes in April 1974. On May 31, 1974 the lower courts ordered him to turn over the tapes. They appealed and in July 8 SCOTUS heard arguments.

I'd say SCOTUS taking 4 weeks to accept, prepare, and begin arguments on July 8 is pretty damn "immediate".

As to "precedent", it's the ENTIRE REASON the judicial branch exists...to place a check on the other two branches of government, and interpret the Constitutionality of their actions.

As to "precedent" in SCOTUS taking up a case of impeachment.....how quickly have they moved on all the OTHER challenges? Pretty fast. It just depends on the difference we have in our subjective interpretation of "immediate" I suppose.

 

As recently as yesterday, we learned that the AG was never a point person when mentioning the Biden.

 

Ya sooo! And that's why I replied with,

If you were even remotely, well lets go with accurate, you would have been more inclusive in your accusation! I grew up Catholic with Catholic parents, relatives and seven years of parochial school with hundreds of other Catholic children and with most of them from Democrat parents in the Bay Area! Good lil Kennedy Democrat Catholics! Not until I was in my late 40's did I begin to reject the Democrat party, and religion was hardly the reason!

It's was short sighted and judgmental people "among other things" that turned me away from the democrat part. And I can clearly see not much is changing other then the people the Democrat party attracts is/are getting even worse over time..

 

Well yeah, that's my point.

 

Ah, yeah you did

Maybe you didn't mean it that way.

I suspect you have a lot of ideas that are perfectly connected in your head that, if you took your time and laid them out I'd find pretty reasonable, even if I disagree. But I can only respond to what's written.

Yup, Chief Justice =/= SCOTUS

Now your getting it!

Of course no one said that the SCOTUS would have no role in the process, if that is your sarcastic straw man.

Yes, but the only other time they ruled on the very constitutionality of an impeachment it took a long time. Hence no precedent of Immediate SCOTUS ruling on the constitutionality of Impeachment.

Again, in the one time that the very constitutionality of an impeachment went to the SCOTUS it took a long time. Could things work out differently here? Sure, but nobody knows that, and signs point to no.

 

You must not have read the entire IG report.

IG report: There were 17 major falsehoods and omissions of exculpatory evidence in the FBI’s four FISA applicants to FISA court judges.

Major falsehoods and omissions of exculpatory evidence 17 times isn't just sloppy work. The people involved in the scheme to spy on an opponents campaign will be going to jail. How high up it goes is up to the person(s) not wanting to sit in a jail cell.

 

Worse than lying under oath?

 

As has been said a zillion times here...no crime is necessary to impeach. Clinton was not proven of any crime either. He was impeached and the Senate (absurdly) 'acquitted' him.

 

Huh.....it is an *analogy* hoping to achieve focus.