YgraineDance : The season-long story arc format here puts me in mind of another show I really loved back ...
yellow_rose1 : Contains spoilers. Click to show. The guy that is going to pick up the inmate named Candice says, it is so expensive to date...
hellsingfan01 : This film is such an underrated film two great filmmakers working together to bring us one...
teteba : In my opinion this special is his second best after live at red rocks. Very high up energy...
Renard Chasefield : You had me at Avocadoes
mkmikas : support your local library vibe
kronickurves : Another fantastic episode!!!
grasshopper rex : I remember reading Fahrenheit 451 when I was a teen and thinking it was farfetched and unl...
grasshopper rex : To say that it's unfunny is a subjective opinion that, while I disagree, at least could be...
Has anyone ever considered the precedent (no pun intended) that the former president’s arguments are setting? Look at it like this, “After I embezzled the money, the company fired me, so you cannot give me any criminal consequences because I no longer work for the company.” You could even state, “After I killed the man, I no longer worked for his company, so I can’t have any legal repercussions because he was no longer my employer!” This is what criminals all over the world will be arguing, and there isn’t a judge in America who will be able to counteract it because the Senate trial of the former president is the highest court. Can the Supreme Court counteract if the senators decide to acquit?
An impeachment isn’t a regular trial like one conducted in a court of law, so the same rules don’t apply to both. I wouldn’t think a precedent set in one would necessarily apply to the other.
As far as the supreme court goes, I bet if donnie “I take no responsibility at all” trump was somehow ‘convicted’ by 2/3 of the Senate, he would fight like hell to find a way to have the SCOTUS decide his fate.