27 comments on “Oh, right

  1. Don’t they first find a law that could not equally be used against St O, Killery and creepy Joe? That is a big problem even for deranged leftards

  2. Of the two charges, “Abuse of Power” has no legal definition, so it isn’t actually law. It’s hard to be above a law that doesn’t exist.

  3. I do love the way that Trump finds that Biden is corrupt, and is immediately impeached for such wickedness.

  4. ‘Bloke gets tried as the law says he should.’

    It’s unfortunate that the Senate’s impeachment hearing is referred to as a ‘trial.’ It makes people think of a Perry Mason courtroom scene. There are many differences. The Dems exploit the ignorance:

    “How can you have an acquittal without witnesses?!?!”

    Witnesses was the Dem House’s job, not the Senate’s.

    Had this been an actual trial, when the Dems finished presenting their case, Trump’s defense team would have asked the judge for – and received – a directed verdict of not guilty of this political turd of a case. No crime. No evidence. No nothing.

    The good news is that while this was going on the past months, the Dem House has kept its stupid hands off the rest of America. Hopefully, they will now resume impeachment hearings.

  5. I’d like to see Chief Justice Roberts impeached when the Republicans get the House back next year.

    His refusal to read a question was starkly political.

    His ruling enabling Obamacare was political as well.

    OT: Why isn’t the plural of chief chieves?

  6. Was he actually charged with violating any specific statute? It’s hard not to think that in the end he was charged with interfering with the Bidens’ milking the Ukrainians. I suppose any politician will fight to the death for their right to peddle influence to the foreigners for significant chunks of change.

  7. The Left will say anything. They have no feedback mechanism.

    True. In the days of large unionised industries union organisers would explain policy and provide feedback, usually in fairly blunt and earthy terms. Then the left, in both the USA and UK, abandoned those traditional voter bases and decided they were really the parties of minorities and started saying whatever came in to their heads to keep those usually mutual exclusive groups inside their tent. Now there’s nobody telling them they have no clothes, only people demanding ever madder polices which appeal to smaller and smaller minorities.

  8. The Democrats were appealing to the ancient legal doctrines of homo croceum malum est and cum facimus alium est. And of course like good socialists they don’t just want to have their cake and eat it, they want to have your cake and eat that too.

  9. “@Gamecock

    OT: Why isn’t the plural of chief chieves?”

    For a long time I’ve been explaining to foreigners that the plural of Guinness is Guinni. At a bar, they should ask for one Guinness or if ordering more, two (or more) Guinni.

  10. Why isn’t the plural of chief chieves?

    No idea, but as an old Frog word, it was always bound to be fvcking trouble

    On the same principle why is not the singular of chives chif?

  11. I had some fun pointing out to a Trump is bad colleague that Biden and the EU threatened Ukraine with withholding aid over corruption issues, including insisting they sack the chief investigator as he was deemed to be in on the corruption.
    So how is it different when Trump does the same thing, just because there’s an American involved in the corruption?
    Still waiting for an answer

  12. Riffing off Gamecock, so to speak, if Harry is short for Henry or Harold and Larry is short for Lawrence, then why isn’t Barry shirt for Benry, Barold or Bawrence?

    Enquiring minds demand answers.

  13. What makes me laugh about this whole impeachment thing is the way the media describe the process ‘moving to the republican dominated senate, where he faces no real prospect of conviction’ but not ‘originating from the Democrat dominated HOR where he faced no real prospect of a fair process’ . The bias is often in by omission.

  14. Boganboy said:
    ”I do love the way that Trump finds that Biden is corrupt, and is immediately impeached for such wickedness.”

    Yup. Always puzzled me, that one. You’d have thought the Dems would like to keep quiet about the whole thing, but perhaps they think that by making enough fuss they can muddy the waters.

    Or perhaps it’s just as Gamecock said, they’ve started to believe their own rhetoric.

  15. Bloke in North Dorset said:
    ”True. In the days of large unionised industries union organisers would explain policy and provide feedback, usually in fairly blunt and earthy terms. Then the left, in both the USA and UK, abandoned those traditional voter bases and decided they were really the parties of minorities”

    Minorities and public sector workers. They still have the big unions, but what they don’t seem to realise is that those big unions are dominated by the public sector and therefore have very different members to the old ones. There’s a huge chunk of the working class electorate that isn’t feeding in to the Labour Party (and, I guess, the Yankee Democrats) any more, and they’re just starting to suffer electorally for that.

  16. Richard,

    Yes, I was thinking about those areas like the former red wall here and rust belt in the USA, the sort of area the left represented with pride, then took them for granted, then under sufferance and now have become detached.

    Now they’re despised by the left for voting Tory/Trump but they are clueless about how they lost them.

  17. “they’ve started to believe their own rhetoric.”

    Exactly!

    “Would I be correct to think The Trial took place in Congress and the Senate is the jury?”

    Not really. You are still trying to equate it to a trial.

  18. In English law we have a choice of two different processes:

    – impeachment, in which the House of Commons effectively prosecutes someone in the House of Lords, with the House of Lords (*) acting as jury; this is vaguely like a normal trial, with the Commons presenting evidence, witnesses called and cross-examined, and the accused able to defend himself (personally or through lawyers); or

    – an Act of Attainder, in which there is no trial, but Parliament simply passes a statute punishing someone; no witnesses are called, the accused has no opportunity to defend himself (unless he is a member of Parliament)

    An Act of Attainder is easier, since you don’t need evidence or a trial, and the defendant can’t defend himself. However being an Act of Parliament it needs Royal Assent, so for Royal favourites impeachment works better.

    The US impeachment seems to be an odd amalgam of the two. The House (equivalent of the Commons) proposes and the Senate (equivalent of the Lords) decides, like an English impeachment, but there’s no proper trial and it’s a legislative decision rather than a judicial one, which makes it more like an English Act of Attainder. But it doesn’t need the President’s approval, which again makes it more like an English impeachment.

    (*) for pendants, as an added complication, the body that hears the case depends on the time of year, because if Parliament isn’t sitting it’s heard by something else (Court of the High Steward, I think, who has to be appointed specially for the event), with slightly different procedure and membership.

  19. Bills of Attainder are explicitly forbidden by the US Constitution. A lot of the SDNY stuff to try to compel PDT to divulge his tax records were sailing pretty close to the wind in this sense as being so narrowly tailored as to target a specific individual.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.