the dotard understands about impeachment as much as he does tariffs Asked by a reporter if he thinks he'll be impeached by Congress, the dotard replied, "I don't see how. They can because they're possibly allowed, although I can't imagine the courts allowing it." https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appears-to-misunderstand-how-impeachment-works-2019-5as for the tariffs, he seems to believe that the US Treasury Dept collects the tariffs from China's treasury dept , clueless that the consumers end up paying for the tariffs such are the recent eg of the embarrassment in chief
The courts allowing it...? LOL. The crazy thing is some Trump supporters are proud to have a guy in there who doesn't understand how Government works. I was never clear on why that was a good thing or something we should support.
If Trump is impeached, Trump will first disband Congress for impeaching him and then disband the courts for allowing it.
Of course, no other President has ever done that....oh wait... https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/201...dy-can-match-Americas-military/8281464888786/
The trump campaign rapid response site claims the media lied about trump calling Meghan Markle, a member of Great Britain's royal family, "nasty" by proving he did... just prior to his trip to meet with the royal family.
lol. "not so fast": Yesterday, when asked by a reporter if he thinks Congress will impeach him, the president responded, “I don’t see how. They can because they’re possibly allowed, although I can’t imagine the courts allowing it.” Commentators have accused Trump of not understanding the way impeachment works and have stated quite categorically that the courts have no constitutional role to play in what is solely a congressional and political process. Time magazine declared in a headline “That’s Not How It Works,” and Vox called the president’s argument “profoundly confused.” Scholars also echoed the derision. The influential legal blog Lawfare wrote confidently that “The Supreme Court Has No Role in Impeachment,” and my friend and colleague Larry Tribe, an eminent constitutional law scholar, called Trump’s argument simply “idiocy,” explaining that “the court is very good at slapping down attempts to drag things out by bringing it into a dispute where it has no jurisdiction.” Not so fast. Our nonlawyer president may be closer to the truth than his lawyer critics. In fact, the Lawfare blog noted that “Trump’s suggestion of resorting to the Supreme Court to appeal an impeachment did not come out of nowhere. ... Alan Dershowitz recently made an argument along the same lines, writing in an essay on ‘The Case Against Impeaching Trump’ that ‘[w]ere a president to announce that he refused to accept the actions of the Senate in voting for his removal … and that he would not leave office unless the Supreme Court affirmed his removal, the people might well agree with him.’” However, my argument did not come from nowhere, either. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...ould-overrule-an-unconstitutional-impeachment Ann Althouse discussing Dershowitz's article: "So no one should express partisan certainty regarding President Trump’s suggestion that the Supreme Court might well decide that impeaching a president without evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors is unconstitutional." Writes Alan Dershowitz, surprising me (and I taught the constitutional law relating to impeachment for many years). He writes: Here's the case he's talking about Nixon v. United States. — about a federal judge named Nixon who challenged the procedure the Senate used to convict him. All of the Justices rejected Nixon's attempted appeal to the judiciary. The Souter and White opinions were concurring opinions. The majority opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist (and joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) stressed the "textually demonstrable commitment" of the issue to the Senate, which is given the "sole Power to try all Impeachments." (The House is given "the sole Power of Impeachment.") Even though that case was about a judge, the Court took into account the special need for finality that would exist in the case of a President: Dershowitz is participating in what is only political dialogue, and he's criticizing expressions of partisan certainty about what the law is. We're all just talking about impeachment, and that's what Dershowitz is doing too. If the question is Is there any way that the courts could get involved? and other lawyers are going on shows and writing op-eds to say, No, there's no way at all, the Supreme Court shut that down decisively in 1993 in Nixon v. United States, there's a place in this chattery dialogue for a lawyer to say, Oh, but there is a way. By all means, get Dershowitz on your TV show if you can. Have him yell at the partisan certainty mongers and have them yell back at him. It's all theater. And you know as well as I do and Nancy Pelosi does that there isn't going to be a damned impeachment. Posted by Ann Althouse at 9:34 AM https://althouse.blogspot.com/2019/06/so-no-one-should-express-partisan.html
OT cutting n pasting another article that he doesn't understanding, what else is new? earth to OT, the article that you had cut n pasted actually corroborates this point thanks for the corroboration, but i don't need the help
Except there is plenty of evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors so Trump doesn't know what the hell he's talking about or how government works.
Forbes transitions to satire? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamese...ide-as-molecules-of-u-s-freedom/#3dbff2723a24
The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't have a literal meaning (in other words, its not a list of crimes). Instead, it was an old English law phrase that was included in the Constitution to act as a limiting factor to lessen the otherwise "serves at the pleasure of the Senate" aspect of impeachment. It does seem to limit impeachment to very serious crimes. btw, it does seem that of what has been described in Mueller's report and others not described that the offenses (obstruction, emoluments, other financial crimes) exceed those involved in both Nixon's impeachment and Clinton's impeachment. In addition, we don't know anything about what was found related to counterintelligence (believed to have been forwarded to other investigations and believed to have been redacted). https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/50-impeachable-offenses.html
