I'm going to say that with an impeachment containing real criminal acts that this court will vote against Trump. The current impeachment is not weighty enough to sway a responsible body like SCOUTS. It did sweep through The House; which says as much about The House as it does about Trump.
The SC has nothing to do with the Senate trial The Chief Justice sits as the presiding judge, and the Senate acts as a jury.
Your question shows confusion about the impeachment process. The President isn't being tried for criminal offenses under the U. S. Code, but for abuses only a President can commit: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He could have been charged with attempted bribery and extortion and obstruction of justice, which are crimes specified in the USC. Maybe tactically that's what the House should have done. However, it didn't have to, since impeachment of the President is sui generis. Andrew Johnson, the first President to be impeached, was charged inter alia with unlawfully firing his Secretary of War, conspiring to prevent faithful execution of a law of Congress, to control disbursements of money appropriated by Congress, making three speeches to bring into "disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States", and bringing disgrace and ridicule to the Presidency. (the latter could easily be applied to the Orange One. Nixon was charged with "obstruction of justice", "abuse of power", and "contempt of Congress". I think abusing his powers of office to attempt to extort a political favor from an ally under attack by Russia by threatening to withhold aid appropriated by Congress is, in the eyes of most informed citizens a very weighty matter, as are Trump's unprecedented and expansive claims to absolute power to refuse to provide evidence to Congress. Much worse than Clinton's extracurricular escapades with Monica because it goes to the core of the relationship between two branches of government and the powers of the Presidency.
the 'rats were in a panic to impeach Trump, frantic to get it done. ( over the weakest charges ever). now, they wont say when these articles will be presented to the senate. what's the holdup ?. if it was such a threat, that the Donald was so damaging to the country, that he was such a danger to national security, you'd think the 'rats would be running to the senate with their asses on fire. but now they stall. they know when they go to trial with no concrete evidence they will fail, and fail badly. gloat while you can, this "shampeachment" will not stand. all the 'rats are doing is tearing their own party down to the ground. which might not be a bad thing...…..
Good informative posts, Barros. It's become rather obvious that many recent posts are indicative of the minds of children with no knowledge of history and no desire to learn any. "capitalism to resort to fascism whenever threatened by democracy."------excellent point.
What's Wrong with Pelosi?... Demons Finally Take Control of Her Tongue - She Starts Speaking Gibberish can someone interpret this noise for me?
Oh good god Please for the love of god just stay off the internet if you dont know how to tell if a video or photo has doctored
not doctored. it runs smooth, no glitches, its the real thing. and please don't infringe on my 1st amendment rights
The first amendment protects you from the government It doesnt protect you from my calling you a dummy
I want to see the new attorney general in 2021 start to investigate William Barr's efforts and accomplishments in defending Trump, protecting Trump, and cover-up of Jefferey Epstein's killing. Barr sent agents to sweep Epstein's home in New York and Paris, and that resort island. Now Barr has all the paperwork and all the sex videos. Donald Trump must be feeling real safe now.
Remotely is the operative here. I can't recall the last time we had someone who relied so heavily on the race card. In every discussion it seems. Maybe it's time to haunt the music or food forums.
In all fairness he did once say his answer to the immigration crisis was to shoot illegal immigrants on sight Barros wouldnt have known that though