The actual Impeachment process:

I think the Senators running for the office will not recuse themselves. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Pretty much sums up how you "think"! Can you read the U.S. Constitution? NO!

Sort of like the HillariousNoMore supporters "recused" themselves?

Pretty much sums up how you "think"! Can you read the U.S. Constitution? NO!

Sort of like the HillariousNoMore supporters "recused" themselves? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Just goes to show how much you "know". Can you even understand the U.S. Constitution? No! Dumbfuck. Sort of like "Read the transcript" t-shirts. It's not a transcript. Like the ones released today by the House.

The testimony is a word-for-word text account of the meeting. Unlike the phone call which is an incomplete abridged summary. You dumbass. Anyone who continues to call the phone call memo a transcript is a liar. Or a dumbfuck who can't read and understand a dictionary. Eat that!

Most strikingly, Article I, section 3, clause 6 specifies that Senators, when sitting on a trial of impeachment, “shall be on Oath or Affirmation.” Senators all swear a general Oath to uphold the Constitution, but the Oath taken in impeachment trials is more finely tuned. It is a juror’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.”

The Senator’s Oath in impeachment trials addresses the tension between the political and legal character of impeachment. The requirement of “impartial justice” means that every Senator must decide from behind the veil of ignorance -- that is, as if he or she did not know the party affiliation of the person impeached. This includes evaluating the evidence, and deciding whether the proven misconduct justifies removal from office. Senators violate their oath if they apply friendlier standards to Presidents of their own Party than to those of the opposing Party.

Ira C. Lupu & Robert W. Tuttle

Ultimately, a senator's decisions to say that he or she will be impartial during an impeachment trial, or state that they will vote yes or no will have only political consequences, if any. Some Democratic candidates are willing to take the political risk of appearing impartial, instead using the assertion that they would vote to remove Trump from office as a feather in their cap for their presidential bids.

by Emily Larsen


You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the law. You're slowly losing your case. Keep trying. Even the devil needs a lawyer. Keep banging on that desk.































































Hey Wacky! Wanna make a bet!

9500 let it get under his skin.

very poor self-control.

I have never "Liked" a post - ever.

not that i care what any Socialist DPST thinks - particularly the pro-Marxist anti-American values DPST's on site. You know who you are.

9500 let it get under his skin.

very poor self-control.

I have never "Liked" a post - ever.

not that i care what any Socialist DPST thinks - particularly the pro-Marxist anti-American values DPST's on site. You know who you are. Originally Posted by oeb11

In that case, I can only imagine he is liking his own posts. I'll take you at your word about not liking any posts. My apologies. I do get passionate about certain things.

Marxism, Leninism, Socialism, and being the dictator at the top of the Socialist -totalitarian heap of dung.

These are a few of One's favorite things!

Marxism, Leninism, Socialism, and being the dictator at the top of the Socialist -totalitarian heap of dung.

These are a few of One's favorite things! Originally Posted by oeb11

In that case, I can only imagine he is liking his own posts. I'll take you at your word about not liking any posts. My apologies. I do get passionate about certain things. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

but .. everyone knows you can only like your own post once, right?

Just goes to show how much you "know". Can you even understand the U.S. Constitution? No! Dumbfuck. Sort of like "Read the transcript" t-shirts. It's not a transcript. Like the ones released today by the House.

The testimony is a word-for-word text account of the meeting. Unlike the phone call which is an incomplete abridged summary. You dumbass. Anyone who continues to call the phone call memo a transcript is a liar. Or a dumbfuck who can't read and understand a dictionary. Eat that!

Impeachment Trials and the Senator’s Oath of Impartial Justice

Ira C. Lupu & Robert W. Tuttle

Impeachment trial impartiality more myth than reality for 2020 Dems angling to beat Trump

by Emily Larsen


You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the law. You're slowly losing your case. Keep trying. Even the devil needs a lawyer. Keep banging on that desk.































































Hey Wacky! Wanna make a bet! Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Sondland changes testimony, admits to quid pro quo with Ukraine

United States Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland walked back his previous claim that there was no quid pro quo agreement between the United States and Ukraine.

Sondland acknowledged in his revised testimony that President Trump withheld U.S. military aid to Ukraine in order to force the Ukrainians into launching an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. He also requested that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky look into a CrowdStrike conspiracy theory and any Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 presidential election.

But, but, but the transcript

Barr and Durham - and how interesting to watch an emotional ideology go up in smoke.

But, but, but the transcript Originally Posted by Jaxson66

It's not a transcript.

but .. everyone knows you can only like your own post once, right? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

No bet huh?

No bet huh? Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

i bet i won't take your bet but i bet you won't stop being a bet-butthole about yer bet.


thank you valued butthole-bettor.

It's not a transcript. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Yeah. It is the one and only OFFICIAL transcript, meaning Schitty and company haven't a fucking leg to stand on with their bullshit lies.

Yeah. It is the one and only OFFICIAL transcript, meaning Schitty and company haven't a fucking leg to stand on with their bullshit lies. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

+1


Vindman, a direct witness to the call with the Ukraine president and the leaker source to Eric Ciaramella has not contradicted any of the transcript and will not in what is released soon by the Democrats. he can't, because he knows no such quid pro quo happened and other direct witnesses not named Trump will dispute him if he does.


there are only so many people privy to the actual conversation. not only has Trump said no quid pro quo happened but the Ukraine president has stated so publicly as well. that leaves a very short list of remaining people who were direct witnesses. the truth will expose Schitthead Schiff and Nancy Pants.

And in the meantime, how much work have the Dims done on the budget appropriations stuff?
The existing Continuing Appropriations Act expires on Nov 21st.