1497
Comments (41)
sorted by:
37
deleted 37 points ago +41 / -4
23
Pepehands 23 points ago +25 / -2

General public won't see anything though. The media controls what they see.

8
xzibit_b 8 points ago +10 / -2

By General Public, do you mean the 80% of Republicans who don't trust the media?

Or 60 percent of Independents who don't trust the media? You know, the two sides that actually matter to Trump.

We don't care about the 30% of mindless authoritarians who will swallow whatever they are given.

3
ironhorse 3 points ago +4 / -1

yes

8
deleted 8 points ago +9 / -1
3
deleted 3 points ago +4 / -1
3
shadowfax 3 points ago +3 / -0

he opens his fist and they blow their load, without fail, even to personal detriment, for 3 years. apparently, we get at least one more before they so much as entertain the idea of a different strategy

they've grown so intellectually lazy. it'd be nice if they could actually try to be competitive at the top of the ticket. i'm all about choices, and it'd be nice if we had more than one for president that made any sense whatsoever

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
18
Kerry000 18 points ago +21 / -3

GEOTUS should just ignore the sham-peachment. Don't give it any kind of credibility by formally going on the defense. That's what the (mostly cucked) GOP should have done in the House. Just ignored it for the scam it actually is.

Official denials always solidify someone's guilt in the eyes of the ignorant, media-brainwashed public.

17
Licensetomeme 17 points ago +18 / -1

If you ignore this kind of shit, it's just gonna be exploited over and over again. There comes a point when you have to push back. Personally, I'd wait for after the election. Either way, it can't be taken sitting down.

9
CmonPeopleGetReal 9 points ago +9 / -0

The house GOP actually did an excellent job of destroying their bullshit lies during their questioning. If they had of ignored it the public would have been presented a false reality of dems lies and quid pro quo.

5
Charnathan 5 points ago +5 / -0

We made him GEOTUS so he could FIGHT; not just take it in the chin.

13
Libertarian 13 points ago +13 / -0

Not sure what jurisdiction the Supreme Court would have to weigh in on how the legislative branch conducts its hearings. Better to let it move on to the Senate where this kind of nonsense isn’t allowed.

12
Isaiah53 [S] 12 points ago +13 / -1

They can very much intervene if the legislative branch is violating the Constitution, which is exactly what they are doing.

5
johnrambo 5 points ago +5 / -0

That's what I was thinking too. How would anyone get congressional proceedings into the supreme court in the first place and under what guidelines? Has it ever been done before?

spezisacuck: Marshall chimed in with something that makes sense

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
nero2003 2 points ago +2 / -0

It may be, but it would delay things and really irritate the democratic candidates who have to campaign in the Spring.

0
Cutter 0 points ago +1 / -1

As far as I understand it, the only "not allowed" in the Senate is that the Republicans hold the majority, but that's a far cry from saying the Republicans in the Senate are on the side of President Trump or the American People.

The only way our politican machine will ever be restored to what our founding fathers envisioned it to be is to REMOVE MONEY FROM THE EQUATION.

Somewhere among the 300+million Americans eligible to hold public office, I'm pretty sure we could find enough willing to serve their county for two years with only a reasonable salary (like minimum wage) to fill the empty seats. After your two years are up, you are guaranteed your old job back, like if you had been drafted, and NO pension plan.

In fact, maybe instead of ELECTING public "servants", they should be DRAFTED.

8
K-Harbour 8 points ago +10 / -2

Damn Straight.

  1. Senate should give Trump his full time before the Senate. Drag every dirty scumbag in Washington before the public.

  2. Senate should go ahead and “convict” Trump, regardless of the evidence.

  3. Trump should file in Federal Court that no Court ever convicted him of a high crime.

The impeachment clause in the Constitution was/is meant to protect the President. It was/is meant to only yank a duly elected President if both of the other two branches of government join to yank him. A president must first be found to be convicted of a high crime before Congress has authority to impeach a president.

What those in Congress have done so far is nothing less than Treason.

8
Marshall 8 points ago +9 / -1

It's not really Unconstitutional. It is against jurisprudence as incorporated into the Judiciary and common law and tradition. But the Constitution does not require normal due process. It is left to the legislature to determine it's own rules. It is the reason our founders were so wary of this provision, fearing it would be used just as it is right now, for purely partisan reasons.

The Supreme Court will not get involved until the case is ripe, which would be after the Senate Trial with the Chief justice presiding. That is where the two branches are able to check the executive Branch. It is also where jurisprudence should enter the picture. With Chief Justice Roberts presiding, he would not sit on any appeal to the SCOTUS. leaving a strong possibility of a tie.

This should be dealt with in the Senate.

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
1
45fan 1 point ago +1 / -0

Flaw in the system. Congress won't impeach itself for misconduct.

4
Marshall 4 points ago +4 / -0

There is no provision in the Constitution for impeachment of congressmen. Only Executive and Judiciary. Removal of Congressmen, House or Senate is left up to the bodies they are elected to.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
4
deleted 4 points ago +5 / -1
3
Ezra 3 points ago +3 / -0

He should do this! I would let it play out some more though and let the democrats continue to eat each other. Let America see them for the scum they are

2
TrancePhreak 2 points ago +2 / -0

Do it.

2
deleted 2 points ago +5 / -3
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
1
Freadrik 1 point ago +1 / -0

Absolutely! Guns, ammo, food.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
AbrahamLincoln 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, if he were impeached and removed, he could not run for President.

2
shadowfax 2 points ago +2 / -0

at this point, even if it sets an unsavory precedent, it might be his best move

getting somewhat sick of the games; settle it

2
NathanHale 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, Mr President, follow you instincts on this and follow them all the way through!

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
1
AbrahamLincoln 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nadler: "Can I have thirds and fourths and...just give me all of it."

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
Feelsgoodman 1 point ago +1 / -0

Can't imagine why you were banned from reddit ;)

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0