I made these in preparation for what I’m sure will be a fair and impartial trial. I’m not nihilistic, you’re nihilistic.
The Silence of the Boltons
The Silence of the Blairs
The Silence of the Duffeys
The Silence of the Mulvaneys
The Silence of the Blairs
The Silence of the Duffeys
The Silence of the Mulvaneys
6 Likes
This is a fair response by the Republicans. It gives Democrats 25 days to send the impeachment articles over. It’s really not that big of a deal.
Yeah she’s still going to jail in his third term
I have no idea how Cuomo keeps getting elected everyone hates him.
Name recognition + olds + minorities
Age old demE formula
Me reading that article
I was going to quote anything juicy from the article, but it’s mind-numbingly boring. They found nothing new, and everyone involved expected from day one that they wouldn’t find anything.
It’s got a nice overview of why anyone would even care, but if you’re familiar with this story, there’s no need to read this. Just wow. LOL.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DPRK_News/status/1215271961196158980
https://mobile.twitter.com/DPRK_News/status/1215269004039860224
1 Like
Whenever Riverman says “Midwest dipshits” I always laugh. This photo is what I imagine that phrase would look like.
2 Likes
Just absolute fucking oceans of dipshits.
2 Likes
I promise you, if you met them you would hate them even more.
4 Likes
These aren’t the people I care about messaging to fwiw. Fuck people far enough gone to go to the actual rallies lol.
1 Like
It is a huge fail if she sends them over next week if there is not some kind of seismic change in the status quo.
LOL Rudy forever and ever
Rudolph W. Giuliani has been rather quiet in recent weeks, but he decided to speak out Thursday via a column published by the Daily Caller News Foundation. In the column, Giuliani, a former prosecutor who became mayor of New York and is now President Trump’s overseas fixer, decides to don a different cap: constitutional scholar.
The result is … something.
The column is an impeachment defense of Trump cloaked in a plea for the Supreme Court to actually declare his impeachment unconstitutional. Let’s walk through it:
While the Constitution does give the House broad discretion in impeachments, there are limits. The most explicit of these is that impeachment can only be for, “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” (Art. II, Sec. 4, U.S. Constitution) However, the articles for impeachment voted on by this entirely partisan Democratic Congress, which are currently being unconstitutionally withheld from the Senate, charge no such offenses. In fact, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are not crimes of any kind, high or low.
However you feel about Democrats not directly accusing Trump of a crime in the articles of impeachment — and I’ve suggested it might not be optimal from a strategic standpoint — there is basically no dispute among constitutional scholars that the Constitution doesn’t require them to. “High crimes” doesn’t refer to very bad crimes; it means misdeeds related to high office. And “misdemeanors” doesn’t mean a crime that isn’t a felony, as it does in the American criminal code; it refers broadly to offenses. Even Jonathan Turley, the constitutional scholar Republicans called as an expert on impeachment, said a crime was not required to impeach a president.
With that extremely faulty premise out of the way, Giuliani continues to describe House Democrats in very colorful terms:
The chairmen who conducted the hearings were like a rogue judge who announced in advance Trump will be executed, but they will still grant him a trial of some kind. Their proceedings made a mockery of due process, violating almost every right granted to an accused.
This would be true, except for the fact that the person in the metaphor is executed, while Trump is unlikely to face any punishment at all. Impeachment is merely the referral of a president for trial in the Senate, where Trump will in all likelihood be acquitted because it requires 67 votes and there are only 47 Democrats.
And now to the meat of Giuliani’s column:
Indeed, the Constitution is silent on the Supreme Court’s role in an impeachment except to provide that it is presided over by the chief justice. However, the Constitution is also silent on the court’s power to declare federal and state laws and government action unconstitutional. It was determined by former Chief Justice John Marshall that judicial review is implicit as the only logical answer to constitutional standoffs between the legislative and executive branches or between the federal and state governments. The reasoning of Marbury v. Madison certainly supports the court having the power to declare an impeachment as unconstitutional if it is an overreach of the carefully balanced separation of powers.
The logic here, such as it exists, is this: The Constitution does not address whether the Supreme Court can strike down an impeachment, and thus it’s an open constitutional question that the court can decide upon. But it’s not clear in this case what the constitutional dispute would even be, since the Constitution rather clearly doesn’t require actual crimes for impeachment.
The net effect would be that the Supreme Court would be inserting itself into the highest of high-profile disputes between the legislative and executive branches, even though it definitely doesn’t have to and even though Trump is essentially being accused of things people have been impeached for previously.
Giuliani, though, thinks there is a compelling reason for such an extraordinary intervention:
If this impeachment is not declared illegal it would remove the constitutional limitation of crimes on the power to impeach. It would allow the House to impeach for policy differences or political leverage.
The first sentence here is a bit inscrutable, but it sounds like Giuliani is saying the court must act because otherwise Congress could impeach for things that aren’t crimes. This, again, is already the case.
And now, the conclusion:
Although there would be an immense amount of political benefit for Trump if there were to be a lengthy Senate trial, proving the vast crimes committed by Democrats during this baseless inquiry, it would be far better for the Supreme Court to reestablish the 229-year constitutional balance between our branches of government.
Then, once again, we can be a government of laws.
I wonder if Trump knows that his personal lawyer is trying to deprive of him of such a tremendously beneficial process.
if i knew i could get in and out just when he was out there yammering i’d probably take 2 gummies and go for the lols
1 Like
You’re out of your mind lol. That’s gotta be the worst place to be on acid I can think of. Talk about your bad trips. I’d struggle to create a movie marathon to generate a worse trip.