How long is this process supposed to take before they vote on it?

Something positive.

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...16&utm_content=Final

Nolte: The China Trade Deal and 22 Other Times Trump Made Fools of the ‘Experts’

Way back in 2015, when the rumors began to circulate about Donald Trump running for president, rumors we had heard for decades, I was shocked at how many “smart people” — those snobs I enjoy heckling as “#GOPSmartSet” — underestimated The Donald.

cont. Great article about the President's accomplishments.

The best line in that article:
"Unless you’re a fool, and let’s face it, most of America’s political and media “experts” are fools, you don’t write off a man like that."

That is exactly what has been happening. Lots of fools telling everyone how things should be run, and how the "little people" could not possibly run things themselves.

If I had photoshop skills I’d photoshop the demoncrats coming over from the House carrying loads of shit in their hands because that’s what they’ve given to the Senate. A pile of horse shit.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
from CTH

https://theconservativetreehou...chedule/#more-181061

[...snip]

Just like the media worked hand-in-glove with the DOJ, FBI, CIA and intelligence officials to construct the fraudulent Russia conspiracy case against Trump; and just like those same administrative state officials and media worked hand-in-glove with the Mueller investigation to advance the fraudulent special counsel effort; those exact same participants are working together to frame the appearance of criminal conduct within this impeachment effort. Same people, same purposes and intents.

I claim and pray this over President Trump, that he will also claim it throughout this whole stinking charade. If you're a praying person, I implore you to join in...

"No weapon formed against you shall prosper,
And every tongue which rises against you in judgment
You shall condemn.
This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord,
And their righteousness is from Me,"
Says the Lord. - Isaiah 54:17 (NKJV)

You’re my hero, a1! Haha.

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:
You’re my hero, a1! Haha.

Yep, stealing that one!

I attended my county Republican Party monthly meeting last night. Folks are fired up. The two topics that sparked cheers were the county voting itself a Second Amendment Sanctuary, and support for Donald Trump. I have not seen such interest, nor have I been so interested in the political world since Ronald Reagan was president. President Trump has sharpened our focus on the chicanery of politicians by trolling them into revealing their true agendas. If we truly want to support this man and what he stands for, get involved at the local level to turn out the vote and bring that landslide victory for President Trump to fruition. In the final act, nothing else matters.

What is going on with all this Lev Parnas BS all of a sudden?


It's clear the Democrats withheld this in order to try and spring it as a surprise during this trial, makes me wonder what other tricks they have planned.

The Senate needs to acquit Trump in ONE DAY so that he can go to the State Of The Union and stick it up Nancy Pelosi's dusty old ass for a full 90 minutes!

Lev Parnas is essentially another Lieutenant Vindman. He doesn’t have shit.

He's trying to avoid jail time. That's all. And he really has nothing. A handwritten note on some hotel stationary? Seriously? It's a joke.

And the stuff he said on Maddow's show has already shown to be contradictory. And he even says Barr was involved in this? Does any rational person really believe that? The guy's a clown.

It seems to me the Dems are trying desperately to "Kavanaugh" this Senate trial.

I hope McConnell and the rest are smart enough to see through all this and move quickly to aquit.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
It seems to me the Dems are trying desperately to "Kavanaugh" this Senate trial.

That is precisely what they're doing. They're throwing everything at the wall they can come up with in hopes something, anything, sticks.

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...eachment-legal-team/

Former independent counsel Kenneth Starr and Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz have joined President Donald Trump’s impeachment legal team ahead of the Senate’s upcoming trial.



“Professor Dershowitz will present oral arguments at the Senate trial to address the constitutional arguments against impeachment and removal,” a spokesperson for the legal team said in a statement on Friday. “While Professor Dershowitz is non-partisan when it comes to the constitution—he opposed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and voted for Hillary Clinton— he believes the issues at stake go to the heart of our enduring Constitution.”

Robert Ray, former federal prosecutor and independent counsel for the Clinton-era Whitewater investigation, is also expected to join the president’s legal team for the upper chamber’s trial, CNN reports.

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow, President Trump’s personal attorney, will lead the defense team.

President On School Prayer changes Yesterday.

When Elizabeth Warren was asked

What are you likely to fail at as president ?

she said the place she might most likely fail was to only get part of her agenda accomplished.

“But I take your question seriously. The place I might be most likely to fail is to get only part. Now, part’s better than none, right? But only part,” she continued, adding that it is a “deeply worrisome thought.”

"deeply worrisome"

“I know that as you sit here it looks like, wow, this woman wants to do a lot and it’s hard. And the truth is, it is,” she continued, reverting to her go-to talking point that she spent her “whole life studying working families” and “why they go broke.”

they go broke because they vote for DEMs

as has been said,
you can work for a living, or vote for a living



https://www.breitbart.com/poli...er-agenda-president/

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...ling-on-impeachment/

The spectacle Thursday of the Senate swearing in Chief Justice John Roberts, and the Senators fraudulently swearing that they would deliver impartial justice, brought home the fact that the impeachment of President Donald Trump is very real.

The House of Representatives disgraced itself with a process that broke with precedent and basic principles of fairness. It impeached the president for legal conduct, on grounds that sow the seeds of future political chaos, if granted legitimacy.

Democrats are proposing not only to reverse the will of the voters in November 2016 — an election whose outcome they have never accepted — but also to “interfere” in the November 2020 election, stamping the president with the scarlet “I.”

To hear Republicans take all of this seriously — debating witnesses and the like — is infuriating. Why should Democrats be able to call a single witness after denied Republicans the ability to call any witnesses of their own in the House inquiry?

Why should Democrats be able to introduce new testimony, and new “factual” claims — from shady characters facing criminal indictment, no less — when Republicans were prevented from calling the original accuser, the “whistleblower”?

The only witness, in fact, who must be called — if witnesses are called at all — is the “whistleblower,” because the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the accused, including the president, the right to confront his or her accuser.

But to allow the Senate trial to go that far would grant the impeachment legitimacy it does not deserve.

The second article seeks to remove the president merely for obeying his constitutional duty to protect the executive by appealing the judiciary. The first article invokes the vague idea of “abuse of power,” without alleging an underlying crime, throwing open the door for any future House majority to impeach a president it does not like. Neither of these ideas should be taken seriously.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) set expectations of a dismissal last month. Conservatives will not forgive Senate Republicans if they buckle and bow to an illegitimate House process or Democrats’ outrageous witness demands.

Having Professor Alan Dershowitz on the Defense team is a real winner. He is a true Liberal, but also aa very strong proponent of the Constitution and the Law. He won't let the Dems get away with anything!

flashguy

Since this would concern the upcoming election, I figured I'd post it here.

Supreme Court to hear 'faithless elector' case ahead of 2020 presidential election

The Supreme Court said Friday it will hear a case over whether presidential electors have to vote in accordance with their states’ popular vote in the Electoral College.

The court said it would take up the case of Chiafalo v. State of Washington, where three so-called "faithless electors" who were fined after voting in 2016 for Colin Powell are challenging whether a state can bind an elector to select the state's popular vote winner.

In the faithless elector case, advocates for the court's intervention say the issue needs urgent resolution in an era of intense political polarization and the prospect of a razor-thin margin in a presidential election, although so-called faithless electors have been a footnote so far in American history.

The justices will hear arguments in April and should issue a decision by late June.

About 30 states require presidential electors to vote for the states' popular vote winner, and electors almost always do so anyway. Under the Constitution, the country elects the president indirectly, with voters choosing people who actually cast an Electoral College ballot for president. It takes 270 votes to win.

The case arises from the 2016 presidential election. Three Hillary Clinton electors in Washington state and one in Colorado refused to vote for her despite her popular vote win in both states. In so doing, they hoped to persuade enough electors in states won by Donald Trump to choose someone else and deny Trump the presidency.

The federal appeals court in Denver ruled that electors can vote as they please, rejecting arguments that they must choose the popular vote winner. In Washington, the state Supreme Court upheld a $1,000 fine against the three electors and rejected their claims.

The court also said Friday it would hear appeals over employer religious objections to contraception coverage in Trump v. Pennsylvania, and Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania.

The appeals involve whether forcing religious objectors to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Some states are now challenging new rules creating broader "conscience" exemptions to the regulatory requirements.

“The Supreme Court of the United States needs to protect once and for all the Little Sisters of the Poor and people of all faiths from government-forced violations of their religious beliefs,” said Stephanie Taub of the First Liberty Institute. “We are confident the justices will again respect the religious liberty of all religious non-profits and reverse the Third Circuit’s dangerous decision.”

The case over insurance coverage for contraceptives to women stems from President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

“Allowing employers and universities to use their religious beliefs to block employees’ and students’ birth control coverage isn’t religious liberty — it's discrimination,” said Brigitte Amiri, deputy director at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “The Trump administration’s attempt to take away people’s insurance coverage for contraception is one of the administration’s many attacks on access to abortion and contraception, and we hope the Supreme Court will uphold the lower court’s ruling blocking this awful law.”

The high court will review an appeals court ruling that blocked the Trump administration rules because it did not follow proper procedures. The new policy on contraception, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, would allow more categories of employers, including publicly traded companies, to opt out of providing no-cost birth control to women by claiming religious objections.

The policy also would allow some employers, though not publicly traded companies, to raise moral objections to covering contraceptives.

Employers also would be able to cover some birth control methods and not others. Some employers have objected to covering modern, long-acting implantable contraceptives, such as IUDs, which are more expensive and considered highly effective in preventing pregnancies.

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...residential-election