They did everything they could but to talk about the question at hand and when they talked about it, they kind of glided over, almost as if they were embarrassed of their arguments.” In contrast, he added, “President Trump’s team were disorganized. “House managers were focused, they were organized,” and “made a compelling argument,” Cassidy said after the vote. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.”Īnd Senator Cassidy, the one Republican who unexpectedly voted for constitutionality, appears to have done it on the basis of theatrical review rather than legal argument. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors,” used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. “High,” in the legal and common parlance of the 17th and 18th centuries of “high crimes,” is activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons. “High crimes and misdemeanors – Wikipedia” But it is an historical concept that may not be fully lodged in our memories. Professors Noah Feldman and Pamela Karlan did their best to try to get everyone to understand this. This was explained during Donald Trump’s first impeachment. They are here for your reference.Īnd here is Leahy’s feckless “Dear Colleagues” letter.Ī high crime is NOT the same as a felony. Lastly, while joint stipulations may always be made, otherwise the general parameters are controlled by the extant Senate Rules on Impeachment.
Don’t fall for that, the parameters have already been agreed to behind the scenes. There will also be discussion of an “organizing resolution”.
#Jamie raskin yarmulke trial
Is this year another stupid and truncated show trial by Pelosi, Schumer and the Dems, in order to look like they are doing something while they are cowering? Of course it is. Much of the above, though not all, came from an excellent report by Barbara Sprunt and Diedre Walsh at NPR. There will be up to four hours equally divided for closing arguments, along with deliberation time if requested by the senators before the vote takes place.” Then there will be four hours divided equally between the parties for arguments on whether the Senate will consider motions to subpoena witnesses and documents, if requested by the managers.
“After the presentations are done, senators will have a total of four hours to question both sides. Each party’s arguments are delimited by not being able to go over two days, and cannot exceed eight hours each. And, no, “video presentations” do not count, that is simply argument by propaganda. It will be predictable baloney from both sides, with no actual evidence submitted and admitted. Then there will be sixteen hours per side to argue their case. There will be up to four hours equally divided between the impeachment managers and the president’s counsel to debate the constitutionality of the trial. This is a ridiculous argument, and will fail, but with much cowardly GOP Senate support. So where are we at the onset of proceedings?įirst, there will be a debate over the “Constitutionality” of even holding and impeachment trial at all. Is that politically expedient at the start of the nascent Biden Administration? Maybe! But they all took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not their political expediency. Don’t fret, it will not take long, because Pelosi, Schumer and the Dems have so decreed out of political cowardice.