Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
direbills

TRUMP WILL NOT TESTIFY

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, foster said:

It's in the best interest of the former president to not take the stand.  I can't see him having the self control to be able to keep from incriminating himself.  

Interesting that he's focused on trying to get the action tossed on constitutionality instead of on whether he's guilty or not.  Maybe his actual case isn't in his favor.

Rarely is it in the best interest of a defendant to testify, which opens up a cross examination of things that aren’t in the defendant’s best interests.

And, let’s get real, trump can’t control the shit that comes out of his mouth, and isn’t smart enough to know where a prosecutor is going with his questions.

The funny thing is, he’s spent many hundreds of hours with courts and lawyers and lawsuits, and I still believe this about him.

so, it’s kind of dumb to rag on him for not taking the stand, and I’m shocked that he is listening to advice from his counsel.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LIBills said:

There are people who study the Constitution for a living telling us that a President who is no longer in office cannot be impeached.

If this is true, there is only one explanation for this impeachment proceeding to continue..........

They need Trump to stay in the news.

There is not one ting in the Constitution that says a former President who has been impeached cannot be convicted and barred form running again.
As a matter fact, there is precedence of a former politician who was impeached and convicted after he left office.

Meet the other American who was impeached and tried after leaving office

Now, before you jump on the "But he wasn't the President" train, there is nothing that says a President is immune from this process.


“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearly 150 Constitutional Scholars Reject Trump’s Defense:

‘The First Amendment Does Not Apply in Impeachment Proceedings’

Former president Donald Trump has no First Amendment defense in his upcoming U.S. Senate impeachment trial, according to nearly 150 constitutional scholars.

In an open letter released Friday, dozens of law professors and First Amendment litigators sought to disabuse the 45th president and his defense team of the suggestion that the First Amendment even applies to his case soon to come before the upper chamber.

“The First Amendment is no bar to the Senate convicting former president Trump and disqualifying him from holding future office,” the letter reads, before explaining that the authors have numerous legal and political differences but are nonetheless united in their understanding of the law on this point. “The First Amendment does not apply in impeachment proceedings, so it cannot provide a defense for president Trump.”

On Tuesday, Trump filed his official response to the Democrats’ impeachment brief, outlining a planned First Amendment defense.

“Like all Americans, the 45th president is protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, he believes, and therefore avers, that the United States is unique on Earth in that its governing documents, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, specifically and intentionally protect unpopular speech from government retaliation,” the filing noted. “If the First Amendment protected only speech the government deemed popular in current American culture, it would be no protection at all.”

By invoking the First Amendment, the defense signaled they intend to fight the charges as if the proceedings are are subject to legal standards and precedents.

But, as Law&Crime has previously noted, impeachment trials are not actually legal trials. They are constitutional proceedings that imitate the trappings of law but are ultimately guided by politics above all else. The scholars describe the process in their letter as “constitutional” and moved to put the kibosh on the defense’s line of thought.

“The First Amendment limits the government’s ability to make it unlawful to engage in speech, practice a religion, peaceably assemble, or petition the government,” the letter notes [emphasis in original]. “Thus, when lawyers say that a defendant established a First Amendment defense in a court case, what they mean is that the defendant demonstrated that the government could not make their conduct unlawful.”

“But Congress’s power to impeach is not limited to unlawful acts,” the letter goes on. “Instead, federal officers can be impeached for lawful conduct, and violations of an officer’s oath of office can constitute impeachable “high Crimes or misdemeanors” under the Constitution even if no law has been violated.”

 

 

 

  • Like 1

“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...