included as one of the four criteria (Treason, Bribery, High Crimes, Misdemeanors)? I would suspect, and admittedly I am not a lawyer, it was in the instance that our President was being bribed by someone else... not the reverse. I am not conceding that bribery took place, I am just asking the question because I do feel that is two distinct and very different situations and the framers likely had one of them in mind.
After it, too, fails, they will drop all pretense and simply go with impeachment because 'Orange Man Bad!'.
Read the statute man.
Facts supporting the hat trick not in dispute.
Only thing in play is whether GOP Representatives and Senators opt for party cowardice over sworn oaths. If so, history will crush them all, deservingly so.
(no message)
(no message)
I don't see that connection... seems to be that Trump would be the one having to be influenced to perform an official act. Again, not a lawyer, wish I would have gone that route, but I digress.
(no message)
(no message)
The House set things up to impeach like a Soviet show trial. The process in the Senate would result in a completely different show. The Dems know this and know that McConnell can drag it on for weeks on end, pinning down the Dem nominees in DC during the primaries. I will not be surprised if the House vote to impeach falls just a little short.
The FRE cedes control of the evidentiary process to the presiding judge.
Also can’t see Rules 401 and 403 working in favor of the R’s strategy.
A very narrow article of impeachment would be the best D strategy.
{
There will be no limitations on what witnesses get called... but hearsay and opinions by fact witnesses will not be admissible. The chief justice will also sustain objections to the leading of the prosecutions witnesses. This will gut the case of the evidence supporting the House's Articles of Impeachment.
Mostly, all of the R’s case.
(no message)
(no message)