WATCH LIVE: Senate Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump (Day Six)

You'll figure it out.

 

"It's not a legitimate subpoena until the courts say it is" BOOM, mic drop.

 

You were not insulted.
Your question has no relevance thanks to the blunders of the House. Learn to like

 

Also, I believe the Senate will avail itself of double jeopardy rulings(IE: You can't charge the same crime twice.) So even if more evidence is attained, it won't be impeachable by these articles.

Yeah Pelosi, doing due diligence within the system was your responsibility.

 

If you watched any of the presentation made by Trump attorney, Patrick Philbin, today (Monday, 27 Jan 20), then you watched a mild-mannered, soft-spoken man very politely, efficiently, and thoroughly tear the anus and the intestines completely out of both of the House Articles of Impeachment!

It was 'fair-and-balanced', scholarly, and utterly rooted in the Constitution, and, previous decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court. Go into attack-mode if you like, but before you do, I'd advise spending an hour watching Philbin 'hoist' Schiff, Nadler, and Schumer 'on their petards'.... Hint: the House built both Articles with legal 'architecture' that was flatly and plainly "defective", and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You may not like it, but you will have to accept it, Mister 'Legal-Eagle'....

 

He was in the chain of command...on the staff of the national security council. He had prepared the talking points for the tel-con focusing on corruption issues. The President tossed them and used his own, which Vidman believed to be contrary to our national security. Officers obtain their commissions from Congress, not the President. And, their first loyalty is to their oath to uphold the Constitution. He did the right thing.

 

Here it is:

 

Who appoints said officers? What government do they serve? Not Vindman's personal views. But the US Government proper. And the Commander has the power to use whatever talking points when he wants, how he wants.

To paraphrase Democrats, Vindman is forever a traitor to our homeland and our country.

 

So Derch's argument is basically that a non-crime is not impeachable.

 

Derch is headed into dangerous territory. You can argue then, that this should've invoked the 25th amendment.

 

I keep going back to the thought that these arguments from Starr and Dershowitz should have been made before the House Judiciary and before Impeachment took place.

 

The election can never be overturned. Nobody is looking to put Hillary in the chair at this point.

Well...illegal unless you do it via insider stock trading. Then it's ok.

 

Dershowitz is directly addressing his flip flop on whether impeachment requires a criminal act.

His argument boils down to, "I accepted the consensus of constitutional law scholars at the time because Clinton was charged with a crime and I didnt feel the need to analyze it closely. But because there is no crime here, I went back and analyzed it closely."

 

ROFL. Epic. This is great listening. Like a collegiate lesson.

 

His analysis though overall, is very beautiful. As I said though, he basically opened the door that you could use the 25th Amendment(incapacity).

 

"Nothing in the Bolton manuscript would raise to the level of an impeachable offense". Another boom, mic drop.

 

Wait...he referenced tbe Bolton report?

 

Yep, just now.

 

"The legislative body is NOT the judge of its own power" Another mic drop. Pelosi needs to be CALLED OUT for this. The House has been undressed by her INCOMPETENCE.

 

Right putting Hilary there would be totally illogical, putting her party there by way of Pelosi is the logical way democrats would go about overturning an election

 

Then charge Biden with fraud. And yes President can delegate authority to their staffs. The political theory that power cannot be handed off under the Constitution is between branchs not the President and his staff. Obama put him in charge there and unless Biden was lying to a foreign leader fraudulently claiming he did not have the authority of the President he did. If he didn't you just added to his problems but it does not make the scandal go away.

 

Didn't Turley basically make the same or similar argument though?

 

I would like to try and get a time stamp later. The language you quoted implies knowledge of the transcript.

 

Turkey explicitly argued that the alleged conduct was impeachable, but he did not believe it had been proven.

 

Clinton was not impeached over a consensual affair, get your facts straight. Clinton was impeached because he committed multiple felonies in a federal court and a federal grand jury.