rhugs : yes, thank you to whoever posted this episode
kronickurves : Apparently cancelled due to Matlock taking timeslot? Not ratings which were very high. (Th...
Rodreko : This show needs more strong diverse women on it talking about their feelings. 🙄 Ten Ton Ti...
Lulusbay : This is a wonderful movie - amazing actors, found it by accident - Michael Caine & Robert ...
random000 : Swanky.
grasshopper rex : Make sure you're well hydrated before watching this.
Birdsforme : Contains spoilers. Click to show. This film was very well made for a tv film. The points made were that there are worse thin...
chugga : im very jazzed at the level of interaction this has generated! i was just coming back to c...
Piglet : Yes, you could be right! I have begun to get some items for my survival box. I also have f...
kkarlz : the queen's hair had me rolling on the floor XD
Has anyone ever considered the president (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?
I think the word you are looking for is “precedent”, so there really isn’t a pun involved. Seems you have no understanding of what the impeachment trial is about. It is not a criminal trial. It is a political one. There is no possibility of jail time. The repercussions, if convicted, is that he would be removed from office. Obviously that has already occurred, so the only purpose of the trial at this point is that, if convicted, a simple majority vote could prevent him from holding office again. So sorry, no criminals would be arguing your assumption, and no trial judge would accept it as a defense. The Supreme Court might get involved on the question of ‘constitutionality’, although I doubt it. But no, the Constitution make no allowance for the Supreme Court to “counteract” if the senators decide to acquit, which seems like a foregone conclusion at this point, since at least 17 republicans would have to join with all of the democrats to convict.