Pollak: Conservatives Will Not Forgive Senate for Buckling on Impeachment

[mystery-ak]

Joel B. Pollak17 Jan 20205,879
2:47

The spectacle Thursday of the Senate swearing in Chief Justice John Roberts, and the Senators fraudulently swearing that they would deliver impartial justice, brought home the fact that the impeachment of President Donald Trump is very real.

The House of Representatives disgraced itself with a process that broke with precedent and basic principles of fairness. It impeached the president for legal conduct, on grounds that sow the seeds of future political chaos, if granted legitimacy.

Democrats are proposing not only to reverse the will of the voters in November 2016 — an election whose outcome they have never accepted — but also to “interfere” in the November 2020 election, stamping the president with the scarlet “I.”

more
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/17/pollak-conservatives-will-not-forgive-senate-for-buckling-on-impeachment/

[Cyber Liberty]

The author seems to be laboring under the illusion that the Senate is not required to have the trial.

[DCPatriot]

The author seems to be laboring under the illusion that the Senate is not required to have the trial.

He's also signaling them to use common sense and immediately move for acquittal.

[Cyber Liberty]

He's also signaling them to use common sense and immediately move for acquittal.

I wasn't aware Senators have common sense.   

[sneakypete]

I wasn't aware Senators have common sense.   

@Cyber Liberty

Me,either. I thought all they had were the right social connections.

[Right_in_Virginia]

He's also signaling them to use common sense and immediately move for acquittal.

Do you mean an immediate move for a summary judgment dismissal of the charges with prejudice?

If so, this is not going to happen ... at least not at the start.  In fact, it's been reported that "dismissal" has been removed from the options even after the House presents its case.

@DCPatriot 

[DCPatriot]

Do you mean an immediate move for a summary judgment dismissal of the charges with prejudice?

If so, this is not going to happen ... at least not at the start.  In fact, it's been reported that "dismissal" has been removed from the options even after the House presents its case.

@DCPatriot

Didn't know that, @Right_in_Virginia   ...thanks.

...read earlier today that Justice Roberts might be some kind of a tie-breaker 'vote'.

Just WTF had this guy done in his earlier life that may be on tape...that would drive him to save his reputation in the eyes of his daughters/wife??

Only John Roberts, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama know.   

[roamer_1]

Do you mean an immediate move for a summary judgment dismissal of the charges with prejudice?

If so, this is not going to happen ... at least not at the start.  In fact, it's been reported that "dismissal" has been removed from the options even after the House presents its case.

@DCPatriot

Good.

[roamer_1]

The author seems to be laboring under the illusion that the Senate is not required to have the trial.

That's right - Though he is probably right about the verdict.

[Cyber Liberty]

Didn't know that, @Right_in_Virginia   ...thanks.

...read earlier today that Justice Roberts might be some kind of a tie-breaker 'vote'.

Just WTF had this guy done in his earlier life that may be on tape...that would drive him to save his reputation in the eyes of his daughters/wife??

Only John Roberts, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama know.   

Roberts has no "vote."  He may try to exercise one, if his puppetmaster decides he needs to.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Didn't know that, @Right_in_Virginia   ...thanks.

...read earlier today that Justice Roberts might be some kind of a tie-breaker 'vote'.

Just WTF had this guy done in his earlier life that may be on tape...that would drive him to save his reputation in the eyes of his daughters/wife??

Only John Roberts, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama know.   

I anticipate Roberts role would be rare, if at all @DCPatriot    Most everything is decided by the 51 vote rule.

The "only" issue I see the court involved in is Executive Privilege and perhaps the unmasking of the "whistleblower" for testimony.  I don't know if Roberts alone would rule or if it has to go to the whole SC.

[truth_seeker]

The author seems to be laboring under the illusion that the Senate is not required to have the trial.

The Senate is only obliged to do what 51 of them decide to do, as I understand.

A 51 vote majority can set whatever rues, they like.

I propose that they set rules whicch are equal in"fairness," with the House thus far.

That falls under the "conservative principle of "reciprocity," or "what goes around, comes around."

If No. 51 turns out to be CJ Rooberts, thank the Bush family dynastery.

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't think the CJ has a roll as tie breaker. That belongs to the President of the Senate, Pence.

[sneakypete]

Didn't know that, @Right_in_Virginia   ...thanks.

...read earlier today that Justice Roberts might be some kind of a tie-breaker 'vote'.

Just WTF had this guy done in his earlier life that may be on tape...that would drive him to save his reputation in the eyes of his daughters/wife??

 

@DCPatriot  He is a closeted homo that danced in the Boy Jorge circles. There is also something more than a little strange about him and his beard adopted a pair of blonde-haired,blue-eyed children from Argentina.

[DCPatriot]

@DCPatriot  He is a closeted homo that danced in the Boy Jorge circles. There is also something more than a little strange about him and his beard adopted a pair of blonde-haired,blue-eyed children from Argentina.

When I was a young lad, was led to believe that Supreme Court Justices...and the FBI had backgrounds that were BEYOND reproach.

Efrem Zimbalist, Jr., and all...       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efrem_Zimbalist_Jr.

[sneakypete]

When I was a young lad, was led to believe that Supreme Court Justices...and the FBI had backgrounds that were BEYOND reproach.

 

@DCPatriot

Still true. Don't believe it,try to get your hands on the birth and adoption records.