Team Trump Asserts Impeachment Theater Constitutionally And Legally Invalid

They NY Times doesn’t spend a of time on the actual documents from Team Trump, but on the Democrats #TDS point of view

Trump’s Defense Team Calls Impeachment Charges ‘Brazen’ as Democrats Make Legal Case

President Trump’s legal defense team strenuously denied on Saturday that he had committed impeachable acts, denouncing the charges against him as a “brazen and unlawful” attempt to cost him re-election as House Democrats laid out in meticulous detail their case that he should be removed from office.

In the first legal filings for the Senate impeachment trial that opens in earnest on Tuesday, the dueling arguments from the White House and the House impeachment managers previewed a politically charged fight over Mr. Trump’s fate, unfolding against the backdrop of the presidential election campaign. (snip)

In a six-page filing formally responding to the House impeachment charges submitted shortly after and filled with partisan barbs against House Democrats, Mr. Trump’s lawyers denounced the case as constitutionally and legally invalid, and driven purely by a desire to hurt Mr. Trump in the 2020 election.

“The articles of impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president,” they said in the response, which was Mr. Trump’s first legal submission in the impeachment proceeding, ahead of a fuller brief that is due on Monday. “This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election, now just months away.”

It might have been nice had they included the actual documents from Team Trump for their readers to read, but, then, their readers might have been informed, and the Times can’t have that. Regardless, including the Team Trump view, which is the view from Republicans, that this is just an extension of the Democrat freakout from losing the 2016 election (remember the screaming at the sky stuff?)

The president’s lawyers did not deny any of the core facts underlying Democrats’ charges, conceding what considerable evidence and testimony in the House has shown: that he withheld $391 million in aid and a White House meeting from Ukraine and asked the country’s president to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son, Hunter Biden.

They don’t have to deny anything: a defendant is innocent till proven guilty under our system. Has the Times forgotten that? Probably so, since that’s the view the House Democrats took, and reinforced by refusing to allow GOP witnesses. And violations for that, along with due process, are one of the issues Team Trump noted

(Breitbart) President Donald Trump’s legal team argued Saturday that the impeachment articles sent to the Senate by House Democrats are “constitutionally invalid” and should be rejected.

The letter was authored and filed by Trump’s attorneys Jay Sekulow and Pat Cipollone in response to the Senate summons for the impeachment trial.

“The articles of impeachment are constitutionally invalid on their face,” the response read. “They fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever let alone ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ as required by the Constitution.” (snip)

The team will also argue that the impeachment hearings themselves were defective, violating the president’s right to due process.

If Democrats thought Trump would take this meekly, they should really have been paying attention since they day he started running for office

“It’s going to be a full-throttled address, we will take the facts head-on and we believe that the facts will prove and have proved that the president did nothing wrong,” the source said.

If Democrats were smart they’d avoid calling witnesses, because the GOP will give Trump the opening to level the Democrats. The full document is that Breitbart article.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

46 Responses to “Team Trump Asserts Impeachment Theater Constitutionally And Legally Invalid”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    The Team Trump argument distilled, is that since Senate GOPhers will never vote to oust Dear Leader the impeachment investigation is as big a hoax as global warming.

    TV lawyer Jay Sekulow makes the legally-challenged argument that the articles don’t allege any crimes, as if that is relevant (except to ardent Trumpettes) to impeachment, thus signalling they have no legal arguments, just political ones. They are rallying the troops for 2020!

    TEACH is protective of the Dems and advises that they NOT call any witnesses. LOL. TEACHs confidence in the Power of Trump is personal as over half of Americans disapprove of Dear Leader. It’s foolish to think that MORE Trump will comfort Americans.

    The facts are clear. Trump and his minions inexplicably tried to strongarm the Ukraine President into announcing an investigation into Trump’s most likely 2020 opponent. Trump ran the whole thing with his Sméagol, Rudy. The Trump counter argument is “So what, my boys (Senate GOPhers) got may back!”

    • Dana says:

      The disappointed Mr Dowd wrote:

      TV lawyer Jay Sekulow makes the legally-challenged argument that the articles don’t allege any crimes, as if that is relevant (except to ardent Trumpettes) to impeachment, thus signalling they have no legal arguments, just political ones. They are rallying the troops for 2020!

      Article II, Secitin 5 states:

      The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

      How interesting it is that the Constitution specifies bribery as an impeachable offense, and the Democrats claim that the President’s dealings with Ukraine amount to bribery, but they did not charge him with bribery. Why didn’t they?

      It’s simple: they have no evidence. They have the word of a holdover Obama NSC official who was not privy to the phone call in question; in a court of law, they’d call that hearsay.

      Gerald Ford famously said that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives says it is, which is clearly a political definition. But the other side of that is that guilt is whatever 2/3 of the Senate says it is, and anything less is acquittal.

      No political impeachment has ever succeeded; removal requires bipartisan agreement, and the fact that the Democrats in the House couldn’t persuade even one single Republican to go along with their views is indicative of their chances to persuade twenty Republican senators to agree.

      • Winston St. John says:

        Clinton committed actual crimes: Obstruction of justice and perjury. Both Democrats and Republicans thought so, and voted to convict in the House. He was narrowly saved from being removed from office by a Senate that voted 55-45 that Clinton was not guilty of obstruction of justice, while voting 50-50 on perjury.

        When determining the rules for his impeachment the senate voted 100-0 and agreed on the format. No telling what will transpire in the next 30 days.

        Senate makeup in 1999 was 55 republicans and 45 democrats.

        Totally down party lines. 55-45 for Obstruction and split on perjury which was harder to prove in the first place.

        Bill Clinton lost his law license and never reapplied for it after leaving office. He was guilty beyond a shadow of doubt of crimes to the point he was Disbarred for his actions.

        In the case of President Trump the reason the democrats want more witnesses is because they do not have a case. They are hoping to keep throwing stuff at Trump until something sticks.

        Do not put it past them to impeach Trump again before the next election, finding something new to throw at the man.

        • Zachriel says:

          Winston St. John: Clinton committed actual crimes: Obstruction of justice and perjury.

          Perjury would have been hard to prove in a criminal court due to lack of materiality under the perjury statute. However, Clinton was found guilty of civil contempt. This is an example of a statutory crime that was not considered impeachable.

    • formwiz says:

      The Team Trump argument distilled, is that since Senate GOPhers will never vote to oust Dear Leader the impeachment investigation is as big a hoax as global warming.

      Too bad it’s the truth.

      TV lawyer Jay Sekulow makes the legally-challenged argument that the articles don’t allege any crimes, as if that is relevant (except to ardent Trumpettes) to impeachment, thus signalling they have no legal arguments, just political ones. They are rallying the troops for 2020!

      Projection like Bell&Howell only dreamed of. Too bad the Constitution specifies high crimes or misdemeanors to keep impeachment from becoming the kind of show trial we have now.

      TEACH is protective of the Dems and advises that they NOT call any witnesses. LOL. TEACHs confidence in the Power of Trump is personal as over half of Americans disapprove of Dear Leader. It’s foolish to think that MORE Trump will comfort Americans.

      As a great Hibernian law enforcement officer once observed, “They pull a knife, you pull a gun. They send one of yours to the hospital, you sent one of theirs to the morgue”.

      Trump can’t wait to call witlesses – Gropin’ Jow, the Ozarks, Zippy, Lurch, maybe even Schiff For Brains.

      And I wouldn’t count on that poll holding up. They all said the Hildabeast was a shoo-in.

      And most Americans don’t seem to object to his economy or immigration policies.

      The facts are clear. Trump and his minions inexplicably tried to strongarm the Ukraine President into announcing an investigation into Trump’s most likely 2020 opponent.

      The facts are clear. Zippy and his minion, Gropin’ Joe, inexplicably tried to strongarm the Ukraine President into calling off an investigation into Gropin’ Joe’s coke-addled son.

      FIFY

      Trump ran the whole thing with his Sméagol, Rudy. The Trump counter argument is “So what, my boys (Senate GOPhers) got may back!”

      Using fairy fantasy is so apt here, one hardly knows where to begin. He has zip, like the rest of the Left, so he devolves into make-believe.

      Ever read where even a couple of Demos up for re-election might defect?

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        By all means impeach President Obama and VP Biden.

        • formwiz says:

          Rather hard since they’re out of office (thank God), but I’d gladly see them indicted, tried, convicted, and sent to prison for the rest of their unnatural lives.

  2. ST says:

    INTERESTING – Poll: Six In Ten Black Democratic Voters Identify As Moderate Or Conservative (video)

    https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2020/01/interesting-poll-six-in-ten-black.html

  3. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    TEACH: They don’t have to deny anything: a defendant is innocent till proven guilty under our system. Has the Times forgotten that? Probably so, since that’s the view the House Democrats took, and reinforced by refusing to allow GOP witnesses. And violations for that, along with due process, are one of the issues Team Trump noted.

    Teach continues to display conservative ignorance of the impeachment progress.

    Impeachment is the Constitutionally described process for holding high gov’t officials, who are often beyond the reach of standard legal remedies, accountable to the American people. For example, if a US President were to engage in back-channel negotiations with a foreign leader to gain an electoral advantage, or accept private money from individuals or nations seeking to curry favor, or even to block the legitimate investigation of his/her actions, they could face impeachment. The US DOJ policy is not to indict a sitting US President as it would distract from the nation’s business.

    Once out of office, a President CAN be indicted for crimes committed while in office or even before office, provided the statute of limitations hasn’t expired for said crime. In practice, a criminal President convicted or resigned would arrange to have his succeeding VP (Pence) grant a pardon for federal crimes and would negotiate deals (if possible) for non-federal offenses.

    • formwiz says:

      Teach continues to display conservative ignorance of the impeachment progress.

      Bolshevik Bunny knows it all from Andrew Johnson.

      Impeachment is the Constitutionally described process for holding high gov’t officials, who are often beyond the reach of standard legal remedies, accountable to the American people. For example, if a US President were to engage in back-channel negotiations with a foreign leader to gain an electoral advantage, or accept private money from individuals or nations seeking to curry favor, or even to block the legitimate investigation of his/her actions, they could face impeachment. The US DOJ policy is not to indict a sitting US President as it would distract from the nation’s business.

      It doesn’t? According to whom, Mule Ears?

      Too bad none of those phony charges are against the law. You have to have high crimes or misdemeanors, not Pelosi Galore’s lunatic ravings.

      And DOJ policy is not law. Take it into court and DOJ policy might just end up as a case of malfeasance and nonfeasance.

      And how is impeachment about high gov’t officials, who are often beyond the reach of standard legal remedies? Only if a hack like Mule Ears falls back on some bureaucratic fantasy because he couldn’t find a real crime?

      • Zachriel says:

        formwiz: Too bad none of those phony charges are against the law.

        An offense doesn’t have to be against statutory law to be impeachable. The first federal impeachment included charges of drunkenness, and Judge John Pickering was convicted and removed in 1803.

  4. John says:

    Trump is being defended by Dershowitz who previously defended Trump’s good friend Epstein
    And let’s not forget that the Bush Attorney General who gave Epstein that sweetheart plea deal Trump later gave to him the plum position of Secretary of Labor
    Wasn’t it fortunate that Epstein can no longer cause anyembarsssment to Trump

    • formwiz says:

      Hardly a good friend. You must be thinking of Willie (and drop all the cartoon characters, your “style” really is that obvious).

      And I wasn’t aware Acosta’s name was involved here. We trying to invent retroactive impeachment?

      And Epstein’s dead because of the Ozarks; too bad that picture of Willie holding one of Epstein’s sex slaves got out.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        A psychiatrist would find Wizdumb interesting. Wizdumb imagines that all those that disagree with his ignorant belligerence are all one person! As I’ve explained many times, hearing the truth usually sounds similar. When 10 different physicists state speed of light in a vacuum is 186,000 miles/second does a ConBot accuse them all of being the same individual telling lies, or does ConBot consider that the speed of light in a vacuum actually be 186,000 miles/second?

        This peculiar psychological trait is hardly unique though. It’s a common occurrence on conservablogs. It’s not just Wizdumb with his phantasmagorical bear suit, bunny suit, cartoon characters etc patois – ConBots and TrumpBots likely don’t understand that “men” who think and act their way are a minority?

        Have a wonderful and contemplative Martin Luther King, Jr. Day!

        • formwiz says:

          A psychiatrist would find Wizdumb interesting. Wizdumb imagines that all those that disagree with his ignorant belligerence are all one person! As I’ve explained many times, hearing the truth usually sounds similar. When 10 different physicists state speed of light in a vacuum is 186,000 miles/second does a ConBot accuse them all of being the same individual telling lies, or does ConBot consider that the speed of light in a vacuum actually be 186,000 miles/second?

          You should really try changing your writing “style”, unless you’re just copying and pasting somebody else’s stuff verbatim, because it all sounds alike with the exact same arguments.

          And, yes, Vagina, other people have noted it, too.

          This peculiar psychological trait is hardly unique though. It’s a common occurrence on conservablogs. It’s not just Wizdumb with his phantasmagorical bear suit, bunny suit, cartoon characters etc patois – ConBots and TrumpBots likely don’t understand that “men” who think and act their way are a minority?

          Blah, blah.

          And, you’re the minority. You may control the media, but good ol’ America is still Conservative.

          Have a wonderful and contemplative Martin Luther King, Jr. Day!

          Did you know he was a Republican?

          Did you know he was against everything you want?

          Contemplate that.

          • Zachriel says:

            formwiz: Did you know he was a Republican?

            King made a point to remain politically unaffiliated, saying “I don’t think the Republican Party is a party full of the almighty God, nor is the Democratic Party. They both have weaknesses. And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.” In 1964, he did come out decidedly against the Republican standard-bearer, Barry Goldwater.

            formwiz: Did you know he was against everything you want?

            Not sure to what you are referring, but King thought moderates were often a hindrance to progress, supported social and economic redistribution, and came out against the Vietnam War.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Not even Ronald Reagan would be a 2020 Republican…

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Here’s how Trump is “helping” Americans…

      from Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz:

      US life expectancy, already relatively low, fell in each of the first two years of Trump’s presidency, and in 2017, midlife mortality reached its highest rate since World War II. This is not a surprise, because no president has worked harder to make sure that more Americans lack health insurance. Millions have lost their coverage, and the uninsured rate has risen, in just two years, from 10.9% to 13.7%.

      Trump may be a good president for the top 1%—and especially for the top 0.1% — but he has not been good for everyone else. If fully implemented, the 2017 tax cut will result in tax INCREASES for most households in the second, third, and fourth income quintiles.

      Given tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the ultrarich and corporations, it should come as no surprise that there was no significant change in the median US household’s disposable income between 2017 and 2018 (again, the most recent year with good data).

      The median wage of a full-time male worker (and those with full-time jobs are the lucky ones) is still more than 3% below what it was 40 years ago.

      Report Advertisement

      The tax cuts were supposed to spur a new wave of investment. Instead, they triggered an all-time record binge of share buybacks – some $800 billion in 2018 – by some of America’s most profitable companies, and led to record peacetime deficits (almost $1 trillion in fiscal 2019) in a country supposedly near full employment. And even with weak investment, the US had to borrow massively abroad: the most recent data show foreign borrowing at nearly $500 billion a year, with an increase of more than 10% in America’s net indebtedness position in one year alone.

      The 2018 goods deficit was the largest on record. Even the deficit in trade with China was up almost a quarter from 2016.

      Last quarter’s growth was just 2.1%, far less than the 4%, 5%, or even 6% Trump promised to deliver, and even less than the 2.4% average of Obama’s second term.

      And for all this sound and fury, the air and water are dirtier, and the Earth is still warming. Shouldn’t things be better with the greatest economy in history?

      • Winston St. John says:

        He is known for his Georgist public finance theory and for his critical view of the management of globalization, of laissez-faire economists (whom he calls “free market fundamentalists”)

        Georgist public finance theory: Georgist Public Finance Theory refers to an economic school of thought. Also known as geoism, this relates to the idea that economic value which comes from property including natural opportunities and natural resources ought to belong in kind to every individual in a society.

        Some Georgists also advocate for the return of surplus public revenue to the people by means of a basic income or citizen’s dividend.

        AOC would be from this class of economic theory. Basically a living wage for everyone who did not want to work taken from those who own property. That would be you and me and everyone who owns a home, mobile home, land, ranch, farm or business.

        To use him as a source despite his nobel prize is certainly partisan and anyone can look up on the internet, find someone they agree with that is complaining against one side or the other and quote them as fact.

        In reality this form of economics is popular outside the US but certainly only by progressives inside its borders.

        As for the growth of the economy. Any basic economist understands when you have more jobs than workers the limit to economic growth will slow. One of my favorite classes to teach is the economics of geography and how geography plays such an importance in the way nations down to towns develop around the world.

        In fact when you factor in all manner of wealth the United States has almost never been the richest country and usually finished 3rd-6th based upon what criteria is being used to measure a nations wealth.

        Growth will continue to be slow until another 6-7 million people are willing to enter the workforce. When this happens the economy will pick us steam again creating more jobs that go unfilled. This in turn will continue to see the rise of wages returning to what the last half dozen presidents were never able to accomplish. A real rise in wages because of the tight supply of workers vs jobs available.

        I disagree with much of what the professor writes as misdirection with sound economic fundamentals behind the reasons he cites for each societal problem.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Are Professor Stiglitz’s observations incorrect?

          Is the economy growing at greater than 2.1%?

          Is our current federal debt skyrocketing?

          Are more Americans going without health insurance compared to a few years ago?

          As our trade deficit with China worse?

          Why is our life expectancy decreasing?

          • formwiz says:

            Yes.

            Wait for the new trade agreements to work.

            Thank the Mocha Messiah.

            Thank the Mocha Messiah.

            Wait for the new trade agreements to work.

            Thank the Mocha Messiah.

          • Winston St. John says:

            A response to your questions is in order.

            I explained why the economy is only growing at 2.1 percent to around 3 percent per quarter. It has to do with the capacity of the economy to absorb workers. Right now there are 7 million more jobs that workers. When this happens the economy slows, because you have a productivity problem.

            To blame President Trump for this is depending upon the illiteracy of the readers to understand the entire economic picture.

            As for health care. Obamacare is still in place minus only the individual mandate. If you remember there was a vote to repeal it and it failed. Obamacare passed by the democrats still remains in place. Explain please how this could possibly be President Trumps fault?

            Federal debt cannot be fixed. The entire US economy runs on deficit spending. If you remember Clinton had a roaring economy and then the GOP balanced the budget and the first thing to happen was the economy went into recession. Unfortunately the USA will never have a balanced budget nor will they ever have the political will to do so. And if a Georgist becomes president then the entire democratic party will go down the drain because:

            Hispanics fled socialists countries. What the progressive left who has lived in the United States all their life fail to understand is that those they rely upon to get them elected all fled socialist governments of cuba, Venzuela and a whole hose of the entire central American countries to come to the USA. One of the reasons why Trump is garnering an ever increasing strength with Blacks and Hispanics is this voting block understands the ills of Socialism. And with Bernie declaring himself a socialist and AOC a card carrying member of the Socialist Party of the USA the left can no longer declare that the right is labeling them something they are not.

            So to anwer your question. The good professors points out obvious problems with our society, none of which can be fixed with the Georgis school of economy which is what the socialist and progressive wing of the Democratic party adhere too.

      • formwiz says:

        US life expectancy, already relatively low, fell in each of the first two years of Trump’s presidency, and in 2017, midlife mortality reached its highest rate since World War II.

        For a Nobel guy (of course, so are Zippy and Krugman), he isn’t very smart. You’d have to wait at least a year to get any significant movement due to the fact Trump’s policies would take that long to go into effect. These figures reflect on Zippy, not The Donald.

        This is not a surprise, because no president has worked harder to make sure that more Americans lack health insurance. Millions have lost their coverage, and the uninsured rate has risen, in just two years, from 10.9% to 13.7%.

        That’s the fault of Zippy and Pelosi (we have to pass it so we can see what’s in it) Galore.

        Try again.

        Trump may be a good president for the top 1%—and especially for the top 0.1% — but he has not been good for everyone else. If fully implemented, the 2017 tax cut will result in tax INCREASES for most households in the second, third, and fourth income quintiles.

        This guy really is a jerk (much like yourself).

        It’s been proven time and again, the lower income brackets are getting the most out of the tax cuts.

        The median wage of a full-time male worker (and those with full-time jobs are the lucky ones) is still more than 3% below what it was 40 years ago.

        Everybody who wants a full-time job has one. Where has this guy been?

        Try again, genius.

        The 2018 goods deficit was the largest on record. Even the deficit in trade with China was up almost a quarter from 2016.

        New agreements with Red China, Mexico, Canada, and now one with Britain on the way.

        Last quarter’s growth was just 2.1%, far less than the 4%, 5%, or even 6% Trump promised to deliver, and even less than the 2.4% average of Obama’s second term.

        Average means it was a lot less. And, with new trade agreement benefitting the country, expect those numbers to go up.

        Negotiations and that moron, Powell, help depress things a bit, but we’re still lots better off than with Zippy.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          So Dumbo Trumbo’s profligate spending and super-low FED rate is depressing the economy???? LOL.

          And the average is even less than the average???? LOL.

          Trumbo is scrambling to “fix” his fukups by announcing BS trade deals. LOL.

          • formwiz says:

            So Dumbo Trumbo’s profligate spending and super-low FED rate is depressing the economy???? LOL.

            Do you use a vibrator when you LOL?

            Clearly, you can’t read a graph or you’d see median wage, which your pal, Stiglitz, says is so bad hasn’t been this good in 46 years.

            And the average is even less than the average???? LOL.

            I hope you lube before you LOL.

            I take it you don’t even know what average or median means.

            Cram that up your LOL.

            Trumbo is scrambling to “fix” his fukups by announcing BS trade deals. LOL.

            Sure. That’s why the markets have been hitting all time highs every day.

            Be careful if you use a cock ring when you LOL. You could shut off circulation to your brain.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            You defend TEACH about as well as the inept Stephanie Grisham defends Trumbo McCon. LOL.

            TEACH: You’re not paying this guy are you? LOL.

      • Jl says:

        “Tax cuts cause rise in taxes in certain income groups and disproportionately benefit the rich..” All income groups received tax cuts except those making between 0-20,000$. The lower group because they’re hardly paying any tax to begin with. So the disproportionate part is where?

  5. Zachriel says:

    “brazen and unlawful”

    There are a lot of possible arguments against impeachment or conviction, but the claim that an impeachment is “unlawful” is not one of them.

    • formwiz says:

      Why not?

      You’re supposed to try the guy (or girl) for high crimes or misdemeanors, not political mumbo jumbo.

      • Zachriel says:

        formwiz: Why not?

        Because it’s incoherent. It’s like saying the law isn’t the law.

        The House has the sole power of impeachment, meaning the sole power to determine what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.

  6. Zachriel says:

    formwiz: You’re supposed to try the guy (or girl) for high crimes or misdemeanors

    And that is what is alleged, that the president used the power of his office to try and coerce a foreign government to interfere in the next presidential election to his personal political benefit.

    • formwiz says:

      That is not what is alleged. Not a single violation of US law is in the articles of impeachment.

      Not a single actual act is in the articles of impeachment.

      Just some fantastical charges based on wishful thinking.

      Better get out the bear suit because you’re not even smarter than the average bear.

      • Zachriel says:

        formwiz: That is not what is alleged.

        That is exactly what is alleged.

        President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process.

        formwiz: Not a single violation of US law is in the articles of impeachment.

        That’s irrelevant. The U.S. Constitution was signed in 1787. The first federal crimes law was passed in 1790.

        • formwiz says:

          Abuse of power is not in the US Code and the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land.

          You are getting lamer by the day.

          • Zachriel says:

            formwiz: Abuse of power is not in the US Code and the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land.

            There was no US Code when the U.S. Constitution was adopted, so that can’t be the standard to which the Constitution applies.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            The Wiz: Abuse of power is not in the US Code and the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land.

            Zachriel: The U.S. Constitution was signed in 1787. The first federal crimes law was passed in 1790.

            So wiz, riddle me this. How could the Constitutional impeachment process contain references to the US Code that wasn’t around?

            We understand that tRump’s hired experts are making the same argument as you but that’s what lawyers do, advocate (even lie) for their clients. Will the Senate GOPhers fall for it? Of course they will. tRump’s “legal All-Star team” only have to make an argument, any argument at all, regardless of how legally ridiculous it is, to give Senate GOPhers cover, so that tRump and his minions can pass along lie to their supporters. That’s what this is about. It’s not a legal argument, it’s a PR stunt.

  7. formwiz says:

    You defend TEACH about as well as the inept Stephanie Grisham defends Trumbo McCon. LOL.

    I’m not defending anybody. I just point out the facts.

    Which is why you’re getting so hysterical.

    TEACH: You’re not paying this guy are you? LOL.

    It’s hard to imagine. you’re so lousy at it.

  8. formwiz says:

    Not even Ronald Reagan would be a 2020 Republican…

    Wanna bet? I quote verbatim, “We win. They lose”. and he and Trump were good friends.

    You’re as much a Reagan expert as you are a climate expert.

  9. formwiz says:

    King made a point to remain politically unaffiliated, saying “I don’t think the Republican Party is a party full of the almighty God, nor is the Democratic Party. They both have weaknesses. And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.” In 1964, he did come out decidedly against the Republican standard-bearer, Barry Goldwater.

    Registered Republican.

    Not sure to what you are referring, but King thought moderates were often a hindrance to progress, supported social and economic redistribution, and came out against the Vietnam War.

    Only when it looked as if he’d be shunted aside by people like Stokeley Carmichael and Rap Brown.

  10. Zachriel says:

    formwiz: Registered Republican.

    It’s possible, but there’s no documentary evidence to support the claim. However, he turned solidly against Barry Goldwater in 1964 for his stance on civil rights legislation.

    formwiz: Only when it looked as if he’d be shunted aside by people like Stokeley Carmichael and Rap Brown.

    King’s most famous speech was given at the “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom” in 1963. Jobs and Freedom. He died while supporting a strike of sanitation workers. As for moderates:

    I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5168 access attempts in the last 7 days.