President Trump's Senate Impeachment Options - DISMISS or ACQUIT or FULL-BLOWN TRIAL.

Statement from the White House just now, summarized: Democrats are WHINING, while the President is WORKING and WINNING for Americans. Cites the just passed China and USMA trade deals over the past 24 hours.

It's amazing how unaffected most of society is by this so-called "dire" impeachment process.

Market hits a new high, gas prices remain low, people are working, welfare claims way down, illegal immigrant influx way down, President Trump heading to Switzerland next week for an important speech...on and on...

Only butt-hurt Democrats and the Media give a hoot.

a reply to: carewemust

And remember, the longer the trial goes on, the less time there is for Warren, Sanders, and the other Senators to campaign... that also includes campaigning for re-election at home!

This is guaranteeing a Biden nomination, and further guaranteeing five more years under Trump. All to protect themselves from being exposed.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

It might not matter, because according to Senator Cruz, there was no High Crime or Misdemeanor outlined in the Impeachment Articles.

Cruz says he's going to motion for a dismissal vote, because the articles don't mention a single crime.

Source: twitter.com...

Senators Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, Barret, should NOT be allowed to vote on anything. The person on Trial is a "political rival", whose job they're trying to take, for God's sake!

a reply to: carewemust

Well, I'm a bit cynical when it comes to all politicians. I like Cruz; he was actually my first choice for President (until that episode with Ben Carson). But when he calls for a dismissal of charges, I have to wonder: is it because he sincerely believes there is no cause to remove the President, or because he doesn't want the crooked dealings in Ukraine exposed on the stand during the trial?

Sorry, Ted... but I gotta call 'em like I see 'em. The Democrats may be the problem right now, but they hold no patent on corruption.

Senators Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, Barret, should NOT be allowed to vote on anything. The person on Trial is a "political rival", whose job they're trying to take, for God's sake!

That's one bag of worms I don't want opened. Yes, all four of these *cough* individuals *cough* have a conflict of interest, but they are also Senators, elected in a free and fair election by their constituents. That's where I get off the Trump train, when we start talking about removing the voice of the people for either side. It's wrong when the House Democrats try to do it to Trump, and it's wrong when we try to do it to the Futile Four.

No issue with opposing them on issues, no issue with making fun of them... but removing their ability to participate as per the Constitution? Nope, not gonna go there.

I feel the same about Mitch McConnell. Several have suggested he be recused. Nope, wrong, he gets to have his say as well, as per the Constitution. That's really what this is about: in 100 years, no one will care about what Trump said to Zelensky, but they will care if we neuter the Constitution by abusing the powers it sparingly gives.

Besides, if they are recused, they get to go campaign...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Democrats are universally whining because Republicans want witnesses who are corrupt.

1) Bidens corrupt in Ukraine, verifying that Trump was right to scrutinize Ukraine military aid package.

2) Schiff-Ciaramella-ICIG Atkinson for corruptly fabricating the false whistle-blower complaint.

a reply to: carewemust

Would be best for the Republicans to throw the trial out the window.... if they allow Democrats their shady witnesses... then you know the Deep State is embedded in the Republican party.

Plus; Schiff will not testify, the Dems will not let Bidens be the subject...

a reply to: CraftyArrow

YOU ARE VERY INTUITIVE!

This hasn't dawned on Nancy Pelosi yet, but she gave Mitch McConnell and the White House a BIG GIFT, by holding on to the impeachment articles for 25 days.

She gave the White House/McConnell TIME to coordinate their strategy. First out the box will be what I've advocated from the beginning, after reading and listening to respected conservative attorneys...DISMISSAL of the articles for not listing any high-crimes or misdemeanors, as required by the U.S. Constitution. Info leaked this evening...

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told Axios Saturday that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is expected to present a resolution that will allow President Trump's legal counsel to motion to immediately dismiss the impeachment charges during the Senate impeachment trial that starts, in earnest, Tuesday.

"My understanding is that the resolution will give the president's team the option to either move to judgment, or to move to dismiss, at a meaningful time," the junior senator continued.

Source: thehill.com...

Attorney Alan Dershowitz says it will take him 1 hour to prove that the impeachment articles contain no high-crimes or misdemeanors. Dershowitz said that 1 hour on the Senate floor is all he needs, and all he's planning on doing.

The MSM nutjobs are perplexed as to why everything around the President and the White House seems so "relaxed". If they had functioning brains, they would remember writing numerous reports about how the White House and Mitch McConnell were "conspiring" during the weeks where vodka-Nancy thought she was being strategically smart.

a reply to: carewemust

I think Trump may be ready to spring the trap. I took this from Bloomberg News. It's one of those "free trial" sites (why are the liberal rags thinking people will pay for their lies?) but there should e other sources:

The House is keeping with the same tired old adage:

In a 111-page trial brief, the seven Democratic impeachment managers say the president’s pattern of misconduct made him a “threat to the nation and the rule of law.”

But what got my attention was Trump's legal team's response:

An initial six-page response from Trump’s own lawyers takes aim at the House Democrats who investigated Trump, calling the impeachment probe a “brazen and unlawful” attempt to overturn the 2016 election.

I also noticed that Guiliani wasn't on the defense team. That surprised me, because Guiliani has reams of documents detailing every aspect of the Ukrainian money laundering operation that Burisma was a part of. Then I realized something tonight: Trump doesn't have to skewer Hunter on the witness stand! As long as the evidence includes part of what Guiliani has, that's enough to get a Senate investigation going, which legitimizes an FBI investigation.

At the same time, Trump can set up the case that Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, et al are guilty of sedition for attempting to overthrow an election by abusing their Constitutional powers. Makes me wonder if Durham won't touch on that during his report. As simply a prosecutor, he would have a hard time bringing charges against a Congressman himself, but he could present evidence for the DoJ (aka Bill Barr) to do so. Congressmen can be prosecuted for certain crimes, and I do believe sedition is among them.

Kinda just thinking out loud here, but I have a feeling things could get very, very... interesting...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
There is something definitely cooking.

Your comment about the Senate conducting an investigation into Hunter Biden is what President Trump would like to avoid, because Senate investigations are like Inspector General investigations. They take many months, and end up with nothing but a report. Then, the DOJ will conduct its own investigation, if the Senate findings warrant it.

A Senate Trial would EXPOSE who has broken the law quickly, thereby making the DOJ's job of prosecuting the criminals that much easier.

But if the Senate votes to dismiss the Impeachment Articles out-right, which is what McConnell says he'll allow, then all exposure of Hunter/Joe, the DNC/Fusion GPS in Ukraine, to millions of Americans, won't happen for a looooong time.

a reply to: carewemust


I Chose ....

1.) The President's legal team can ask that the Trial's Judge, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, dismiss the 2 articles of Impeachment, due to not being based on High Crimes and Misdemeanors, as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.



What is the Point of a Senate Trial without ANY Evidence of a Crime ? The Constitution is Clear on Impeachment Requirements , They Are Not Present here .

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Exactly! No crime...no trial needed. Unless it's in a country run by a dictator who can make blowing one's nose too loudly punishable. But that's not America.

Also, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg says that if a Senator has shown "bias against the President" that Senator should be recused from casting any votes, or participating in the trial.

In the conversation, Justice Ginsburg also implied that senators who display bias should be disqualified from acting as jurors in the trial.

When asked about senators making up their minds before the trial, the Supreme Court Justice said: "Well if a judge did that, a judge would be disqualified from sitting on the case."

www.bbc.com...

Senators Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, and Barret are seeking President Trump's (the Defendant) job, and say something negative about President Trump (the Defendant) every single day on the campaign trail.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

If there is a dismissal (which I agree is possible), it will be the Senate which will dismiss it, not Roberts. His role is mostly ceremonial; the Senate controls what goes on with the trial.

That's the problem with a dismissal: it places the Senate at risk politically for accusations of bias (ain't that a hoot after witnessing the most biased House investigation imaginable?). Pelosi and her ilk have already started the war drums on this charge. The ultimate solution would be to hear the evidence, hear the defense, call Bolton and Parnas, then get Schiff and Hunter Biden on the stand, eviscerate them, and get a 2/3 or better vote to acquit. That would clear Trump, take away any claim of bias in the proceedings, the Senate could counter Pelosi's arguments about political bias, and the DoJ would have access to Hunter's testimony. The problem is getting enough Democrats in the Senate to go along with it.

That might be possible with Trump's legal team. Jay Sekulow is a pretty damn good lawyer in his own right, and so is Pam Bondi. Alan Dershowitz has already stated that he can blow this thing apart Constitutionally in one hour. Ken Starr probably has more experience with impeachments than anyone else in the country. Now add in that in several states (like mine), those Senate seats may be Democrat for now but they will flip in a heartbeat should there be any indication of animosity toward Trump. If Jones doesn't appear completely impartial, he might as well clean out his desk, come home, and retire now... he won't have a wet snowball's chance in a Death Valley heat wave. If he does act impartial, he has the incumbent advantage.

Hey, Doug Jones... remember: "If you like your job, you can keep your job."

TheRedneck

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell publishes the Impeachment trail RULES today. As expected, the liberal talking heads, and funeral director Chuck Schumer are not happy.

Source: www.cnn.com...

They've been whining for 3 years. It's about to reach a fever pitch now, me thinks.

a reply to: carewemust

Kudos to the Republicans. This does seem to be fairly applied. Not sure where the House can complain about the speed of process. They rushed through their inquiry and then sat on delivering the articles to the Senate for 25 days! Egad!

I think it is smart to hold off on determining if witnesses are necessary. If the Managers cannot show just cause nor evidence for Impeachment in 12 hours, then further witnesses would be an unnecessary waste of time. Just as any grand Jury situation. You either have the appropriate evidence or you don't. That is on the prosecution and one that all learn quickly so as not to repeat such humiliation by impatiently rushing to conviction.