A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
Perhaps relevant here since impeachment is the end state objective of the Deep State Coup.
President Trump might have the courts make a determination if the house articles of impeachment even meet the Constitutional guide lines of High Crimes and misdomenor comparable to treason.
If you have a charge for which their is no law that makes it a crime, do you even have a crime?
The prevailing sense of that for hundreds of years, is no, there must be some sort of a legal bases for claiming a crime that was preexistent in law at the time the alleged offense occurred.
As we have been told repeatedly of late, impeachment is not about the law, but it is political (which makes it sad that one party uses it to disenfranchise half of America).
That is why I do not think Roberts will dismiss it.
While that is true the Senate has an opportunity to specify what constitutes a valid impeachment indictment worthy of a trial. Right now the exact interpretation of:
“High crimes and misdemeanors” is open to a bit of interpretation. The founders intentionally left it that way to avoid putting themselves in a box, the implied meaning was that other high crimes and misdemeanors that rose to a level comparable to treason would qualify.
For example gross corruption consisting of an egregious collection of misdemeanors might be so outrageous that the public might demand impeachment. Unfortunately there is a bad faith interpretation of that (which is what the Democrats have done) which is to say that they can claim any grounds – sort of like the classic indict a ham sandwich concept.
The fair and reasonable counter to that is for the Senate to specify some required lower threshold they will require in order to initiate a trial – they have sole authority to hold the trial and that includes say this is nonsense and dismissing it summarily as a defective indictment.
It would be like an over zealous prosecutor preparing an indictment and the courts summarily dismissing the case when presented to the court due to fatal flaws in the indictment (like listing a law that was never enacted or finding that there is no standing to even file the indictment.
What I’d like to see is the Senate just calling for the hearing at the time of most utility to the Republicans, then calling ONLY witnesses for the defense and with the same kind of “Rules Of Engagement” used by the Democrats in the House. Then, after about a week of having the Biden’s (both of them, and maybe their spouses too… all of them, and the bastard child in arms…) on the stand, call Pelosi to testify about her, um, “monetary interests” and issue a subpoena for Soros and explore his ties. You get the idea.
Then, having hauled the Key Players off the Primaries Stage, announce that the Impeachment is so flawed that it lacks standing and pitch it out.
What I think we’ll get is a polite pro-forma “trial” and an acquittal. Another attempt to “show them how to do it by being a roll model” and bringing a water pistol to a gang war vs. Nerd event.
Oh Well.
Then you can lay odds on it that just as soon as the acquittal is registered, the House will start Impeachment Part Deux and a do-over. Rinse and repeat until they are voted out of office.
I’d like to see them ask Nancy Pelosi if she actually WANTS to move into the Oval Office as POTUS, since she is next in succession. Is she stupid enough to want that bull’s-eye on her back as the next Arkancide target?
Musings from the Chiefio 
Then a week later on Fox… I especially like this phrasing:
“Impeachment is a dead cat, stop playing with it” “it ought to be buried”. 15 minutes.
Lindsey seems to be set on investigating Hunter Biden… and “fixing” the FISA process and FBI… and asking if Obama knew…
Perhaps relevant here since impeachment is the end state objective of the Deep State Coup.
President Trump might have the courts make a determination if the house articles of impeachment even meet the Constitutional guide lines of High Crimes and misdomenor comparable to treason.
If you have a charge for which their is no law that makes it a crime, do you even have a crime?
The prevailing sense of that for hundreds of years, is no, there must be some sort of a legal bases for claiming a crime that was preexistent in law at the time the alleged offense occurred.
https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/how-trump-could-seek-to-dismiss-impeachment-articles-in-court/amp/
As we have been told repeatedly of late, impeachment is not about the law, but it is political (which makes it sad that one party uses it to disenfranchise half of America).
That is why I do not think Roberts will dismiss it.
The Constitution only lists one remedy, Senate Trial. IMHO, that is the only outcome.
While that is true the Senate has an opportunity to specify what constitutes a valid impeachment indictment worthy of a trial. Right now the exact interpretation of:
“High crimes and misdemeanors” is open to a bit of interpretation. The founders intentionally left it that way to avoid putting themselves in a box, the implied meaning was that other high crimes and misdemeanors that rose to a level comparable to treason would qualify.
For example gross corruption consisting of an egregious collection of misdemeanors might be so outrageous that the public might demand impeachment. Unfortunately there is a bad faith interpretation of that (which is what the Democrats have done) which is to say that they can claim any grounds – sort of like the classic indict a ham sandwich concept.
The fair and reasonable counter to that is for the Senate to specify some required lower threshold they will require in order to initiate a trial – they have sole authority to hold the trial and that includes say this is nonsense and dismissing it summarily as a defective indictment.
It would be like an over zealous prosecutor preparing an indictment and the courts summarily dismissing the case when presented to the court due to fatal flaws in the indictment (like listing a law that was never enacted or finding that there is no standing to even file the indictment.
What I’d like to see is the Senate just calling for the hearing at the time of most utility to the Republicans, then calling ONLY witnesses for the defense and with the same kind of “Rules Of Engagement” used by the Democrats in the House. Then, after about a week of having the Biden’s (both of them, and maybe their spouses too… all of them, and the bastard child in arms…) on the stand, call Pelosi to testify about her, um, “monetary interests” and issue a subpoena for Soros and explore his ties. You get the idea.
Then, having hauled the Key Players off the Primaries Stage, announce that the Impeachment is so flawed that it lacks standing and pitch it out.
What I think we’ll get is a polite pro-forma “trial” and an acquittal. Another attempt to “show them how to do it by being a roll model” and bringing a water pistol to a gang war vs. Nerd event.
Oh Well.
Then you can lay odds on it that just as soon as the acquittal is registered, the House will start Impeachment Part Deux and a do-over. Rinse and repeat until they are voted out of office.
I’d like to see them ask Nancy Pelosi if she actually WANTS to move into the Oval Office as POTUS, since she is next in succession. Is she stupid enough to want that bull’s-eye on her back as the next Arkancide target?